A federal judge on June 5 denied defendants’ request for a stay pending appeal on his May 13 preliminary injunction in Rhode Island v. Trump, a case in which 21 states’ attorneys general sued to halt the dismantling of three federal agencies, including the Institute of Museum and Library Services, in response to a White House executive order. Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island observed that the defendants appear to be complying with the court order “without any apparent harm—irreparable or otherwise.”
In addition to the IMLS, the Minority Business and Development Agency and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service are implicated in the suit. Defendants in the case include the agencies and their acting directors, President Donald Trump, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought.
Defendants appealed the district court’s decision on May 19, and they submitted affidavits from leaders of the three agencies as new evidence. They also assured the court they were reversing the actions they had taken to gut the federal agencies. They explained that they already had begun processing and disbursing unfulfilled grants, and that they had lifted administrative leaves so that staff could come back to work, but they also said that a week was not enough for full compliance. On May 30, they filed a report explaining why they believed a stay pending appeal would be appropriate.
Noting that the court’s conclusion in favor of the states’ attorneys general “was not a close call,” Judge McConnell reasserted his decision that Trump’s March 14 EO and actions taken to carry it out violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. He said that expending congressionally appropriated funds was “not an injury but a constitutional and statutory requirement." He further explained that the preliminary injunction “allowed for the discretion that is afforded to the Executive Branch to carry out the laws passed by Congress” and that nothing in the ruling stops the defendants “from taking lawful steps to manage the three agencies going forward.”
Several times in the order, Judge McConnell made reference to a May 12 email exchange with both parties, a day before he ordered the preliminary injunction. In the conversation, which was later submitted as evidence by the plaintiffs, he provided a draft version of the preliminary injunction and invited attorneys to submit revisions for his consideration. "Defendants proposed specific language that the Court adopted in the order verbatim—and that defendants now find too restrictive,” he said. He noted that the defendants’ present objections to the preliminary injunction “repackage” earlier arguments and “ring hollow.”
ALA Case Still Up in the Air
While grantees and employees of IMLS have seen some relief thanks to the preliminary injunction in Rhode Island v. Trump, a similar lawsuit filed by the American Library Association and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees awaits a judge’s decision.
ALA and AFSCME’s case against IMLS acting director Keith Sonderling and agency defendants is being heard by Judge Richard J. Leon in the District Court of the District of Columbia. Judge Leon granted the plaintiffs a narrow temporary restraining order on May 1, as a way of protecting them while he investigated the case and made a ruling, but the TRO expired May 29. On June 2, ALA and AFSCME requested either an extension of the TRO or a preliminary injunction within a week’s time, reiterating their argument—now echoed by the decision in the Rhode Island case—that defendants’ “actions violate the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act and are ultra vires,” or outside legal bounds.
In a May 27 conversation, ALA president Cindy Hohl told PW that she hoped to hear soon from the D.C. court. “We have yet to receive the judge's decision, but it should be down to the hours, at this point,” Hohl said.
