US federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to stop DOJ grant cancellations

A federal judge has allowed the Trump administration to rescind nearly ₹800 million dollars in grants for programmes supporting violence reduction and crime victims.

US District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Monday denied a preliminary injunction sought by five organisations on behalf of all recipients of the more than 360 grant awards, and granted a motion by the federal government to dismiss the case. 

 

Mehta called the Department of Justice's actions shameful, but said the court lacked jurisdiction and the organisations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection.

Defendants' rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence, Mehta wrote in his ruling. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.

The Justice Department's Office of Justice Programmes cancelled the grants worth more than $800 million in April, saying it had changed its priorities to, among other things, more directly support certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault. 

 

A message left seeking comment from Democracy Forward officials was not immediately returned. A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling.

The lawsuit filed by the Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm argued that the grant terminations did not allow due process to the organisations and lacked sufficient clarity. The lawyers also said the move violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers.

Many of the organisations that lost the federal money said the unexpected cancellations mid-stream had meant layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships. 

 

The five organisations named as plaintiffs sought class status to represent all affected grant recipients. Attorneys General from at least 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed amicus briefs in support of the action, as well as local governments and prosecuting attorneys- several of whom had lost grants for victims programs, alternatives to prosecution programs or others.

The Justice Department asked Mehta to dismiss the suit, arguing in a court filing that there was no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programmes that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.

Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a run-of-the mill contract dispute and said it belonged in a different court.