New Jersey v. Office of Management and Budget
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
Overview
Overview
A coalition of states sued the Trump administration over the mass cancellation of federal grants.
The Facts
Facts
On January 27, 2025, OMB issued a memorandum directing all federal agencies to pause grants and loans while the administration reviewed programs for consistency with Trump executive orders. States and nonprofit organizations were cut off from accessing federal grant portals. The pause affected Medicaid reimbursements, education funding, housing assistance, and climate programs. The memo was rescinded within two days after public backlash and court challenges, but plaintiffs argued the attempt demonstrated the administration's intent to impound appropriated funds.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the executive branch may unilaterally pause congressionally appropriated grants and loans without statutory authority, and whether such a pause constitutes an unlawful impoundment of appropriated funds in violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
The Rules
Rule
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prohibits the executive from withholding congressionally appropriated funds without statutory authority or a formal rescission request to Congress. Spending power belongs to Congress; executive refusal to obligate or spend appropriated funds requires specific legal authority.
The Application
Analysis
The OMB's January 27 memorandum directing agencies to pause all grants and loans pending executive review, without statutory authorization or congressional rescission request, appears to constitute a textbook impoundment prohibited by the ICA, as it prevented obligated, appropriated funds from being dispersed to eligible beneficiaries across Medicaid, education, housing, and climate programs. The administration's reliance on executive orders alone, rather than statutory authority or formal congressional notification, lacks the legal foundation the ICA requires for withholding appropriated funds. Although the memorandum's rescission within 48 hours may render the challenge moot, the plaintiffs' argument that the directive demonstrated the administration's intent and capability to unilaterally impound appropriations goes to the core question: whether the executive possesses inherent authority to pause congressionally mandated spending, or whether the ICA's prohibition is ironclad regardless of the pause's brevity or stated purpose.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The states won. On July 17, 2026, the court granted them summary judgment on Count I, and on October 7, 2026 it entered a Rule 54(b) final judgment declaring that the federal grant "Termination Clause" (2 C.F.R. 200.340) does not allow agencies to terminate awards based on program goals or agency priorities that the agency identifies after the award is made. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their remaining claims, and the case was terminated on October 9, 2026. On October 22, 2026 the federal government appealed to the First Circuit and asked the district court to stay the judgment pending appeal, arguing the declaratory judgment does not rest on reviewable final agency action and that any grant-termination disputes belong in the Court of Federal Claims. The appeal and the stay request are pending.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support