Wham! Another Very Muscular Injunction -- Out Of Rhode Island's Chief USDC Judge -- In Favor Of New York, Against Tangerine 2.0 Just Entered...

As we await the start of the argument, in the USAID case handed back down to USDC Judge Ali from the Supremes -- in DC at 11 AM EST -- we note that the Chief USDC Judge in Rhode Island has entered his preliminary injunction against Trump's lawlessness, in favor of the people and State of New York (but applicable nationwide) -- do go read all 45 pages. It is a plain English primer -- on the legal issues being resolved day by day, in some two dozen cases pending around the nation, on the topics of spending, and cuts -- generally.

Here's a bit of this fine 45 pager -- but do read it all, if you are a student of history. It will be cited in future decades.

. . .The Executive’s [Tangerine 2.0's] categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government. The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate, and sophisticated balance -- but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the Executive put itself above Congress. It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending. Federal agencies and departments can spend, award, or suspend money based only on the power Congress has given to them -- they have no other spending power. The Executive has not pointed to any constitutional or statutory authority that would allow them to impose this type of categorical freeze. The Court is not limiting the Executive’s discretion or micromanaging the administration of federal funds.

Rather, consistent with the Constitution, statutes, and caselaw, the Court is simply holding that the Executive’s discretion to impose its own policy preferences on appropriated funds can be exercised only if it is authorized by the congressionally approved appropriations statutes.

Accordingly, based on these principles and the reasons stated below, the Court grants the States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. . . .

The Agency Defendants are enjoined from pausing, freezing, blocking, canceling, suspending, terminating, or otherwise impeding the disbursement of appropriated federal funds to the States under awarded grants, executed contracts, or other executed financial obligations based on the OMB Directive, including funding freezes dictated, described, or implied by Executive Orders issued by the President before rescission of the OMB Directive or any other materially similar order, memorandum, directive, policy, or practice under which the federal government imposes or applies a categorical pause or freeze of funding appropriated by Congress. This includes, but is by no means not limited to, Section 7(a) of Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy. . . .

Now you know. Our system of ordered liberty is -- in the main -- ultimately (somewhat unwieldy, but effectively) self correcting, with the able aid of excellent members of the federal judiciary -- like the above jurists in DC, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, Rhode Island and Washington State. Onward.

नमस्ते