Washington, DC – In a series of legal defeats for President Donald Trump, federal judges from Washington, DC and Washington state delivered rulings within an hour and a half on Tuesday. These setbacks challenged controversial moves made during the early days of Trump’s second term, illustrating the crucial role courts play for those opposed to Trump’s actions.
Judge Loren AliKhan in Washington, DC issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the administration from freezing federal grants and loans indefinitely. This ruling expands on an earlier block made by an appointee of former President Joe Biden last month. AliKhan criticized the freeze as “irrational, imprudent, and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”
In the same courthouse in DC, Judge Amir Ali ordered the Trump administration to pay foreign aid-related money owed to government contractors and nonprofit groups by Wednesday night. This decision followed allegations of non-compliance with an earlier temporary restraining order. Ali, another Biden appointee, emphasized the importance of the government fulfilling its financial obligations.
Elsewhere in Washington state, a federal judge in Seattle issued a preliminary injunction halting Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions and funding. Judge Jamal Whitehead, also appointed by Biden, stated that Trump’s actions undermined the nation’s refugee admissions program, emphasizing that the president’s authority is not limitless.
The administration is currently facing approximately 80 legal cases challenging actions taken in Trump’s early weeks back in office. While some plaintiffs have seen success in obtaining emergency relief, the White House has also secured court victories. Judges are now carefully reviewing these cases to determine whether to issue preliminary injunctions to block government actions.
AliKhan justified her decision to issue the preliminary injunction on the funding freeze by highlighting the potentially unlawful nature of the freeze. She emphasized the catastrophic economic impact it could have, particularly on the nonprofit organizations involved. The court cases surrounding these issues are ongoing, with judges examining the evidence presented.