SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democracy forward
US Judge Delivers Another Blow to 'Harmful' Trump Funding Freeze
"The Trump administration's OMB grant freeze memo plunged people and communities across the country into chaos and uncertainty," said one lawyer. "This order is a lifeline."
Feb 03, 2025
Organizations that challenged U.S. President Donald Trump's attempted federal funding freeze welcomed a Washington, D.C.-based judge's Monday order that further restricts its implementation, which followed a similar decision from another court on Friday.
District Judge Loren AliKhan issued a temporary restraining order following her administrative stay last week. While her initial block on the policy prompted the Trump administration to rescind the relevant memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), both AliKhan and District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island determined that further action was needed, citing White House messaging.
McConnell's Friday decison stemmed from a challenge filed by the attorneys general of 22 states plus D.C., and his decision only applied to them. AliKhan's case was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of the American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance, the National Council of Nonprofits, and SAGE, which all celebrated the judge's 30-page order that bars the Trump administration from "implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating under a different name the directives" in the OMB memo.
"A halt on federal agency grants would mean state, local, tribal, and territorial health departments don't get what they need to fund public health and prevention programs and research," said Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a Monday statement. "Today's ruling is a major victory towards continuing these vital programs. We will continue to work with partners to protect funds for public health, which were approved by Congress and are making the difference between life and death."
Diane Yentel, chief executive of the National Council of Nonprofits, noted such groups "have been left in limbo by the Trump administration's callous actions" and "now, they finally have some needed clarity and can continue to do their essential work."
"We are determined to continue to do all we can to prevent this administration's reckless attempt to halt funding that would put people's lives and safety at risk, from pausing research on cures for childhood cancer to halting food assistance, [limiting] safety from domestic violence, and closing suicide hotlines," Yentel added.
SAGE CEO Michael Adams, whose group supports older LGBTQ+ people and their caregivers, also highlighted the freeze's impact.
"Restricting federal grants and loans would severely impact the lives of older Americans, including LGBTQ+ elders, who are more vulnerable to health issues, disabilities, and social isolation, and often struggle to access the care and services they need," he said. "We are grateful for this ruling, which protects our older neighbors, friends, and loved ones from the harmful freeze on federal grants and loans."
Companies are similarly "counting on federal funding," said Main Street Alliance executive director Richard Trent, "for services like infrastructure development, workforce training, and childcare programs that allow small businesses to thrive."
"Main Streets in America can't afford for these services to crumble," he continued, "and this ruling is a welcome step in the fight to protect the funding small businesses count on."
Although the decision from AliKhan—an appointee of former Democratic President Joe Biden—is another step toward thwarting Trump's attack on federal funding, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, acknowledged that the fight is far from over.
"The Trump administration's OMB grant freeze memo plunged people and communities across the country into chaos and uncertainty as they waited to see if critical programs—from childcare, to eldercare, to food services, to health programs, to community initiatives—would continue," Perryman said.
"This order is a lifeline that provides the breathing room needed for our clients to continue to provide services people across this country rely on," she added. "We look forward to pursuing this case on its merits in court on the behalf of our clients and the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdogs, Unions Target DOGE With Lawsuits Mere Minutes Into Trump Administration
"This fight is about fairness, accountability, and the integrity of our government," said AFGE national president Everett Kelley.
Jan 20, 2025
The legal fight over President Donald Trump's "Department of Government Efficiency" kicked off less than hour into his presidency with a flurry of lawsuits filed in federal court—including multiple that allege the body is in violation of the the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Trump tapped billionaire and Tesla CEO Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to run the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which was conceived by Trump to help aid with cuts to government spending and regulation. (Ramaswamy, however, is reportedly departing DOGE to launch a bid for Ohio governor).
In a Monday statement announcing one of the lawsuits, Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, said that "allowing unelected billionaires to run roughshod over essential services without being transparent about their operations does not achieve the efficiency the American people want to see from their government and only threatens to further undermine the public's trust."
Democracy Forward is serving as co-legal counsel in one of three lawsuits alleging Federal Advisory Committee Act violations. That complaint was filed by a diverse group of plaintiffs, including the advocacy organization the American Public Health Association, the union the American Federation of Teachers, the veterans group the Minority Veterans of America, the progressive veterans group VoteVets Action Fund, the consumer advocacy group the Center for Auto Safety, and the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
A second was filed by the watchdog group Public Citizen, the watchdog nonprofit State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the federal employees union the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). A third was filed by the public interest firm the National Security Counselors.
"This fight is about fairness, accountability, and the integrity of our government," said AFGE national president Everett Kelley in a statement Monday. "Federal employees are not the problem—they are the solution. They deserve to have their voices heard in decisions that affect their work, their agencies, and the public they serve."
Plaintiffs in the first three suits argue that DOGE is operating as a federal advisory committee but not adhering to regulations overseeing those bodies.
Under the 1972 law, federal advisory committees—bodies that advise federal decision-makers on policy, which are also known as FACAs—must do things like furnish meeting minutes and make their meetings open to the public. The groups must also establish a charter and ensure the viewpoints of its members are "fairly balanced."
According to the complaint co-authored by lawyers with Democracy Forward and CREW, the defendants—who include DOGE and the Office of Management and Budget—"have taken no action to comply with FACA, including by making a formal determination that DOGE's creation serves the public interest, nor have they filed a charter identifying the scope of DOGE’s work."
The lawsuit also alleges that "DOGE's membership does not include anyone who brings the perspective of the people and communities that will be most directly affected by the drastic cuts to the federal programs and services that DOGE will recommend."
The complaint co-authored by Public Citizen also makes the same argument regarding balanced viewpoints. Each of the plaintiffs listed in that suit appealed to have representatives from their respective groups join DOGE in order to offer expertise, according to the filing.
"Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy both hold financial interests that will be directly affected by federal budgetary policies—presenting substantial conflict of interest concerns," said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, in an early January statement regarding her request to join DOGE.
Two of Musk's companies account for at least $15.4 billion in government contracts over the past 10 years, according to New York Timesreporting from October. Ramaswamy's perch atop DOGE could also present conflicts of interest stemming from financial interests he has in multiple companies with exposure to the federal government, the Timesreported before revelations of his plans to leave DOGE.
Also Monday, the conservation organization the Center for Biological Diversity sued to obtain public records showing how "people claiming to represent DOGE" have communicated with the White House since the presidential transition began.
In t complaint, the Center for Biological Diversity argues that they filed an unfilled public records request with the Office of Management and Budget for materials that would "shed valuable light on any directives or communications with OMB regarding DOGE and its objectives, which will shed light on the new administration's intended operations and responses as they take office."
"Whether it's Trump or Elon Musk who's really running the government, we're a nation of laws and the people have a right to know what Musk and his cronies have been up to during the transition," said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement Monday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Strikes Down Unconstitutional Parts of Arkansas Law Targeting Librarians
"The court has safeguarded the right of every Arkansan to access ideas and information without fear of censorship or prosecution," said the ACLU of Arkansas legal director.
Dec 24, 2024
In a blow to right-wing efforts to ban books and criminalize librarians, a federal judge on Monday struck down key provisions of an Arkansas law as unconstitutional—though the fight is far from over, with the Republican state attorney general planning to appeal.
Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed Act 372 in March 2023. A few months later, U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks temporarily blocked implementation of Sections 1 and 5 of the law—and on Monday, he ruled against them in a 37-page order.
Section 1 threatened Arkansas librarians and booksellers with up to a year in jail for providing minors with access to "harmful" materials. Brooks wrote that "if the General Assembly's purpose in passing Section 1 was to protect younger minors from accessing inappropriate sexual content in libraries and bookstores, the law will only achieve that end at the expense of everyone else's First Amendment rights."
"The law deputizes librarians and booksellers as the agents of censorship; when motivated by the fear of jail time, it is likely they will shelve only books fit for young children and segregate or discard the rest. For these reasons, Section 1 is unconstitutionally overbroad," added the judge, who also found the provision "unconstitutionally vague."
Section 5 created a process for challenging books in public libraries that critics called burdensome. Brooks found the provision unconstitutional because it is problematically vague and "unnecessarily imposes content-based restrictions on protected speech."
The state's Republican leaders plan to keep pushing for the law. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement to The Associated Press that "I respect the court's ruling and will appeal," and Huckabee Sanders vowed to work with him on that effort.
"This victory over totalitarianism is a testament to the courage of librarians, booksellers, and readers who refused to bow to intimidation."
Meanwhile, the broad coalition that took on Act 372—including booksellers, librarians, patrons, and professional associations—celebrated their latest legal victory, which comes as right-wing policymakers in other states work to force through similar policies.
"This was an attempt to 'thought police,' and this victory over totalitarianism is a testament to the courage of librarians, booksellers, and readers who refused to bow to intimidation," ACLU of Arkansas executive director Holly Dickson said in a statement. "Arkansans deserve a state where intellectual freedom thrives, and this ruling ensures that libraries remain sanctuaries for learning and exchange of ideas and information."
John Williams, the group's legal director, declared that "this ruling reaffirms what we have said all along—Act 372 is a dangerous and unconstitutional attack on free expression."
"Our libraries and bookstores are critical spaces for learning, exploration, and connection," Williams added. "By striking down these provisions, the court has safeguarded the right of every Arkansan to access ideas and information without fear of censorship or prosecution."
Democracy Forward also represented some members of the coalition battling the law, including the Arkansas Library Association.
"Laws like Arkansas' that seek to threaten librarians and booksellers with jail simply for doing their job are dangerous for people, communities, and our democracy," said Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman in a statement. "Our team is honored to represent librarians in Arkansas to stop this attempt to impede the freedom to read and we will meet further attempts in Arkansas and elsewhere with legal challenge."
Leaders of the American Booksellers Association, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, Freedom to Read Foundation, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, WordsWorth Books, Pearl's Books, and WordsWorth Books said in a joint statement that "together with librarians, authors, publishers, booksellers, and readers everywhere, we applaud the court's carefully crafted decision upholding the constitutional right to access books."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular