In The Rhode Island Federal Courts, OMB/DOGE/Musk/Tangerine 2.0... Just. Keep. Losing.

And the American people, and the social services safety net. . . are the ultimate winners, here. [As a refresher, we have posted about ten items on the progress of this litigation; just search "Rhode Island" in the upper left box.]

Here is that clearly correctly decided seven page order -- and a bit of it:

. . .The Court recently granted the Plaintiff States' Motion for Enforcement of the Court's March 6 Preliminary Injunction after finding that Defendant Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") was implementing a manual review process that violated the injunction. See ECF No. 175. The [Trump] Defendants now bring this Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Enforcement Order based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling on an emergency stay application in Department of Education v. California, No. 24A910, 2025 WL 1008354 (Apr. 4, 2025) (per curiam).

The [Trump] Defendants assert the ruling in California suggests that "this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiffs' enforcement motion relating to non payment of various FEMA grants." ECF No. 176 at 3. Thus, the Defendants ask that the Court withdraw its Enforcement Order or stay the Order pending resolution of their appeal of the underlying Preliminary Injunction. . . .

Recall that the APA's sovereign immunity waiver does not apply to claims for "money damages." 5 U.S.C. § 702. What Bowen affirms is that, even if a court's enforcement order can be "construed in part as orders for the payment of money by the Federal Government to the State, such payments are not 'money damages'" precluded under the APA. Bowen, 487 U.S. at 910. The Court's Enforcement Order -- and underlying Preliminary Injunction -- do not grant "money damages" because money damages are a remedy at law that "providels] relief that substitutes for that which ought to have been done." Id. The Court's orders do not provide monetary relief that is a substitute for the harm the States experience from the categorical funding freeze.

Instead, the Court's orders provide specific relief, as they "undo the [Agency Defendants' acts effecting a categorical freeze of federal funds obligated to] the State[s]." Id. That the Court's orders could give rise to the disbursement of funds to the States does not bar its jurisdiction under the APA-particularly when, as here, such disbursements are a "mere by product" of the Court's "primary function" of reviewing the Agency Defendants' "interpretation of federal law" and regulation. Id. Accordingly, Bowen makes clear that the Court has jurisdiction, under the APA, to set aside FEMA's actions pursuant to its Preliminary Injunction. . . . [Denied.]

Now you know. Onward, grinning into the warm sunshine -- for a bike ride by the clear lake waters. . . much to be grateful for, with my great, grown daughter in for a month-long visit!

नमस्ते