Federal Judge Myong Joun granted a preliminary injunction blocking the USDA from conditioning tens of billions in state grants on compliance with unspecified federal "policies" advanced by the Trump administration. The injunction resulted from a lawsuit by 20 states and the District of Columbia, which argue the new certification requirement is vague, exceeds USDA authority, and violates the Spending Clause. The order protects funding for programs such as SNAP, the National School Lunch Program and WIC while the case proceeds; Judge Joun said he will publish a written memorandum explaining his decision.
Judge Temporarily Blocks USDA From Tying $74B+ In Grants To Compliance With Trump-Era Policies
United States Department of Agriculture logo and U.S. flag are seen in this illustration taken April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
A federal judge on Friday granted a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from withholding tens of billions of dollars in federal grants from states based on a new requirement that they certify compliance with unspecified federal "policies" promoted by the Trump administration.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, who was appointed by President Joe Biden to the federal court in Boston, issued the order in a challenge brought by the Democratic attorneys general of 20 states and the District of Columbia. Judge Joun said he will publish a written memorandum explaining his reasoning at a later date.
What the Lawsuit Says
The coalition of states argued the USDA's certification requirement — announced late last year — was vague and would force states to adopt or enforce federal positions unrelated to the administration of the grants. Plaintiffs said the change threatens funding already authorized by Congress that supports nutrition programs and farmers, noting states receive more than $74 billion annually from USDA programs.
The attorneys general warned the conditions could jeopardize major nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). They argued the USDA lacked statutory authority to impose the new conditions, that the policy violates the U.S. Constitution's Spending Clause, and that the agency failed to follow required administrative procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Administration's Position
The Trump administration contends that, just as states must comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and regulations to receive funding, similar compliance requirements should apply to other federal "policies." The contested executive orders referenced by the USDA and plaintiffs touch on issues including immigration enforcement, "gender ideology," transgender athletes, and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
Reaction And Next Steps
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell welcomed the ruling on social media, calling the grants a "lifeline" for families. Spokespersons for the Justice Department and the USDA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The injunction is one of several recent court decisions that have blocked attempts to attach new conditions to federal grants. The preliminary order remains in place while the litigation continues; Judge Joun will issue further written findings explaining the legal basis for his decision.
Case: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:26-cv-11396.
Counsel Listed In Filings: For the states — Nita Klunder (Massachusetts Attorney General's Office), Vikas Didwania (Illinois Attorney General's Office), and Brian Bilford (California Department of Justice). For the USDA — Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts.
Help us improve.
