Talwani: clause fails ‘unambiguously imposed’ standard
A federal judge in Boston ruled Friday that the Trump administration cannot rely on an obscure clause buried in budget-office regulations to terminate billions of dollars in federal grants, granting a summary judgment sought by 23 states.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that the administration’s use of the clause violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause, which requires that conditions on federal funds be stated clearly. The Office of Management and Budget had promulgated the provision, and the lawsuit argued it was being deployed as a “nationwide slash-and-burn campaign” against grant programs.
“Defendants’ interpretation of the Termination Clause is not clearly supported by the text of the provision, runs counter to the regulatory scheme, receives no support in the rulemaking history, and would violate the Spending Clause’s requirement that conditions be imposed unambiguously,” Talwani, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, wrote.
The lawsuit, filed last year, accused the administration of using the clause to make cuts to programs spanning crime prevention, food security, and scientific research. The states said they were concerned it would be used to cancel current and future grants.
Talwani also denied a motion by the government to dismiss the case, securing the final ruling. The decision prevents the administration from relying on the clause for the mass cancellations at issue in the litigation.