Appeals court denies Trump administration's urgent request to reinstate spending freeze
Last month, a judge ruled that the Trump administration must end a broad freeze on federal program funding.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump’s comprehensive freeze on federal spending encountered another obstacle on Tuesday when a federal appeals court denied an emergency request from his administration to lift the restrictions.
The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously dismissed the administration’s effort, marking an initial setback for the administration in its executive power disputes during Trump’s second term.
Currently, the issue remains with Rhode Island-based U.S. District Judge John McConnell, who last month mandated the Trump administration to remove a sweeping spending freeze on federal programs. On Monday, he issued a second strongly worded order after reviewing allegations that officials were ignoring his initial directive.
This represents the latest legal challenge for the administration, which has faced multiple court rulings across the country blocking several of Trump’s signature initiatives, with judges asserting that the administration appears to be disregarding laws and the Constitution in its haste to execute them.
Despite the fact that McConnell’s “temporary restraining order” is not usually subject to appeal, attorneys from the Justice Department quickly turned to the 1st Circuit, requesting the appeals court to grant an “administrative stay” to suspend McConnell’s orders. They contended that his original ruling was an overreach that interfered with Trump’s authority to oversee federal spending.
The judges on the appeal — David Barron, Julie Rikelman, and Lara Montecalvo — noted the “well-recognized uncertainty” regarding the availability of the type of stay sought by the DOJ at this stage, indicating that they were not convinced it was warranted.
“Defendants do not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay request or identify any harm related to a specific funding action or actions that they will face without their requested administrative stay,” the judges stated in their two-page order.
The lawsuit overseen by McConnell was initiated last month by 22 Democratic state attorneys general and primarily challenged an Office of Management and Budget directive that directed federal agencies to implement a broad suspension of grant and aid funding. Although that memo was rescinded shortly thereafter, the states maintain that funding for various programs continues to be hindered.
Both McConnell and Barron were appointed by President Barack Obama, while Rikelman and Montecalvo were appointed by President Joe Biden.
Jessica Kline contributed to this report for TROIB News
The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously dismissed the administration’s effort, marking an initial setback for the administration in its executive power disputes during Trump’s second term.
Currently, the issue remains with Rhode Island-based U.S. District Judge John McConnell, who last month mandated the Trump administration to remove a sweeping spending freeze on federal programs. On Monday, he issued a second strongly worded order after reviewing allegations that officials were ignoring his initial directive.
This represents the latest legal challenge for the administration, which has faced multiple court rulings across the country blocking several of Trump’s signature initiatives, with judges asserting that the administration appears to be disregarding laws and the Constitution in its haste to execute them.
Despite the fact that McConnell’s “temporary restraining order” is not usually subject to appeal, attorneys from the Justice Department quickly turned to the 1st Circuit, requesting the appeals court to grant an “administrative stay” to suspend McConnell’s orders. They contended that his original ruling was an overreach that interfered with Trump’s authority to oversee federal spending.
The judges on the appeal — David Barron, Julie Rikelman, and Lara Montecalvo — noted the “well-recognized uncertainty” regarding the availability of the type of stay sought by the DOJ at this stage, indicating that they were not convinced it was warranted.
“Defendants do not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay request or identify any harm related to a specific funding action or actions that they will face without their requested administrative stay,” the judges stated in their two-page order.
The lawsuit overseen by McConnell was initiated last month by 22 Democratic state attorneys general and primarily challenged an Office of Management and Budget directive that directed federal agencies to implement a broad suspension of grant and aid funding. Although that memo was rescinded shortly thereafter, the states maintain that funding for various programs continues to be hindered.
Both McConnell and Barron were appointed by President Barack Obama, while Rikelman and Montecalvo were appointed by President Joe Biden.
Jessica Kline contributed to this report for TROIB News
