Temporary restraining order blocking freeze remains in place awaiting federal judge’s ruling

by Nancy Lavin, Arkansas Advocate
February 21, 2025

A crowd of Democratic state attorneys general packed the left side of a third-floor federal courtroom in Providence Friday afternoon, prepared to make their case for a longer and more sweeping ban against a federal funding freeze.

Opposite them sat U.S. Department of Justice attorney Daniel Schwei, the lone representative for President Donald Trump and the dozens of federal cabinet agencies named in the AGs lawsuit.

“It kind of reminds me of a wedding where everyone sits on the bride’s side,” Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, joked.

But there was little love as arguments played out during the two-hour hearing. The AGs decried the immediate and irreparable harm already playing out nationwide for state agencies and government contractors unable to make payroll or provide services to residents in the wake of an attempted federal funding freeze.

Schwei acknowledged the infamous White House budget memo that set off the cascade of chaos and litigation was too broadly interpreted at first. But he insisted the AGs’ request seeking to stop the administration and federal agencies from blocking access to any federal grants and aid was too broad.

As expected, McConnell did not immediately issue a ruling of the request for a preliminary injunction, though he promised to do so “quickly” — likely within a week. Until then, his existing, short-term ban preventing the federal administration from freezing funds stands.

Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom Friday afternoon, Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, one of six co-leads in the lawsuit, said he felt confident in the AGs’ arguments.

“You can’t really read from the questioning which way a judge is leaning, but I am confident we’re right on the law here,” Neronha said. “The question will be how do you write the remedy? But I have no doubt we’re going to get a preliminary injunction.”

If granted, the requested injunction would prevent the federal government from freezing any already-obligated grants and aid not expressly under the executive branch’s purview as the case proceeds. While McConnell granted a short-term ban three weeks ago, the longer and more permanent block is necessary, Neronha said.

“The reason we want an order is because, frankly, we don’t trust them,” Neronha said. “In the long run we need this order to ensure that the president won’t go back to doing what is patently unconstitutional and that is to reverse the spending decisions of the Congress.”

Even though the White House budget memo was rescinded two days after its Jan. 27  issuance, the objective of freezing federal funds remains, as stated on X by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Even now, trillions of dollars in funding for educational and scientific research, energy efficiency programs and foreign aid remains inaccessible, including in Rhode Island, according to court documents filed by the AGs.

They argue the abrupt halt of money necessary to pay employees to provide services risks severe consequences to the people who benefit from those programs, as well as state governments themselves.

In Rhode Island, for example, the unexpected halt of $125 million in federal funding to the Office of Energy Resources, including rebates for electric vehicles, could jeopardize expected state revenue, forcing state officials to overhaul their entire budget, Sarah Rice, Rhode Island assistant attorney general, said during the hearing Friday.

Elsewhere across the country, inability by state governments to pay contractors hired for infrastructure work or to run Head Start programs for young children has created a “chilling effect” where vendors no longer want to work with state governments, Rice said.

“This is a threat to all components of service infrastructure in each of our states,” Rabia Muqaddam, special counsel for federal initiatives for the New York Attorney General’s office, said during the hearing Friday. “It is really impossible to hold, in my eyes, how vast the impact would have been if not for the court’s orders.”

Muqaddam also highlighted the unprecedented nature of Trump’s executive orders in the breadth and speed with which he attempted to halt trillions of dollars in funding already authorized by Congress. The AGs lawsuit contends, among other arguments, that the funding freeze violates the separation of powers and spending clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Schwei, however, pointed to budget and spending freezes enacted under presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, including Biden’s decision to halt the $1.4 billion allocated for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Much like Biden wanted to pause cash flow to study whether it was the best use of money, so does Trump look to review how federal money is spent, Schwei said.

“The rationale is for agencies to pause funding to review it,” Schwei said, “and decide, is this the best use of taxpayer dollars?”

He openly admitted that the initial White House budget memo had a broader impact than was intended, but pointed to subsequent guidance issued as soon as the day after clarifying and narrowing the scope of the funding freeze to specific sources.

“When properly understood, the OMB memo is directing a pause to a handful of discrete topics,” Schwei said.

McConnell pushed back, noting it wasn’t until he issued his temporary restraining order that suddenly, funds were again accessible to state agencies, nonprofits and contractors.

If, as Schwei suggested, only federal agencies with the independent power to review their funding had paused grants and aid, the court order would not have led to a gush of previously backstopped funding, McConnell said.

McConnell also offered counterpoints and questions to the AGs, including over the scope of a proposed court order and the overlap with a slew of other federal lawsuits challenging executive orders on funding, including in D.C. and Massachusetts.

McConnell, a Biden-era appointee and prolific donor to Democratic candidates prior to his appointment to the bench, has come under fire by Vice President J.D. Vance and later, Elon Musk, who called for impeaching McConnell in a post on X.

Members of Rhode Island’s congressional delegation and the Rhode Island Bar Association quickly came to McConnell’s defense.

Neronha on Friday called the Republican-led criticism of McConnell “ridiculous.”

“What the vice president, Mr. Musk and others do when they challenge Judge McConnell’s integrity, when they talk about impeaching him, is again, trying to undermine the judicial branch of government,” Neronha said. “When the president sidelines both the Congress and the judiciary, what we have is an authoritarian system of government.”

McConnell appeared unfazed by the sudden national spotlight and criticism.

“I try not to read the papers anymore, thankfully, except when The New York Times called my order ‘slightly testy,’” he said during the hearing, referring to an article published on Wednesday. 

Earlier Friday, a federal judge in Massachusetts extended a temporary ban preventing the National Institutes of Health from capping funding for research institutes and universities.

On Thursday, a federal judge in D.C. heard arguments, but did not issue an order, in a separate case by nonprofit and business groups challenging the federal funding freeze.

Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Temporary restraining order blocking freeze remains in place awaiting federal judge’s ruling appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

Republican state AGs seek to clarify stance on disability law

by Anna Claire Vollers, Stateline, Arkansas Advocate
February 21, 2025

Amid a public backlash over the potential loss of disability protections, 17 Republican state attorneys general submitted a new court filing Thursday to clarify their position in a lawsuit that seeks to strike down part of a federal law that safeguards disabled people from discrimination.

The lawsuit, filed in September, targets the Biden administration’s addition of a gender identity-related disorder to the disabilities protected under a portion of federal law known as Section 504.

The AGs, in a joint status report filed with a U.S. District Court in Texas, clarified that they don’t want the lawsuit to take away Section 504 accommodations for people with disabilities.

“We’ve been saying all along that there was never any intention to take away 504 accommodations, and this court filing confirms that,” South Carolina Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement Thursday.

In recent weeks, the AGs have faced a growing public outcry stemming from conflicting messages about what the lawsuit would do.

National disability rights groups, advocates and experts have pointed to parts of the lawsuit in which the AGs ask the court to find the entirety of Section 504 unconstitutional. They fear that if the court agrees, the law’s discrimination protections for all people with disabilities could vanish.

Arkansas Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin, Georgia Republican Attorney General Chris Carr and others issued public statements in recent weeks adamantly denying that interpretation. Griffin has said that if the states win the lawsuit, “regulations would go back to what they were” before the gender identity-related disorder was added.

“Plaintiffs clarify that they have never moved — and do not plan to move — to declare or enjoin Section 504 … as unconstitutional on its face,” the new joint status report reads.

The lawsuit is currently on hold. The parties in the case agreed to pause litigation shortly after President Donald Trump took office, while his administration reevaluates the federal government’s position. A spokesperson for Carr told Stateline in an email that they expect the Trump administration to reverse the Biden rule, which could cause the lawsuit to be dropped.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Republican state AGs seek to clarify stance on disability law appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

Free school breakfast, maternal health Medicaid, school cellphone ban all become Arkansas law

by Tess Vrbin, Arkansas Advocate
February 21, 2025

About halfway through Arkansas’ 2025 legislative session, some of Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ policy priorities have become law while others have yet be debated by lawmakers.

On Thursday afternoon, Sanders signed three bills she championed:

Act 122 requires Arkansas school districts to ban students’ access to cellphones and personal electronic devices during the school day;Act 123 will provide free breakfast to Arkansas students regardless of their eligibility for the federal free or reduced-price meal program beginning with the 2025-2026 academic year;Act 124 — the Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies Act — changes the state’s Medicaid program by establishing presumptive Medicaid eligibility for pregnant Arkansans, offering reimbursements for doulas and community health workers, and establishing pregnancy-related Medicaid coverage for specific treatments.

All three bills passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support.

Sanders named the free breakfast policy and the school phone ban as legislative goals in her State of the State speech on Jan. 14, the second day of the session.

In a press conference before signing both bills Thursday, Sanders reiterated two more goals that have yet to be taken up by lawmakers: the elimination of the state’s 0.125% grocery sales tax and a higher-education overhaul bill.

“We will have a productive session, helping families here in Arkansas live their very best lives,” Sanders said.

So far no legislation has been filed to eliminate the grocery tax, but lawmakers filed Sanders’ proposed higher education omnibus policy, Arkansas ACCESS, in two identical bills Monday.

The bills propose creating a universal college application, a common course-numbering system among all institutions, a direct admissions program that would establish provisional admission to students who meet basic standards and a statewide transfer system that would allow the transfer of college credits between universities and two-year institutions to work both ways.

Bills flesh out Arkansas governor’s higher-education overhaul proposal

Among other things, the bills would also consolidate a number of high school college-level courses into a single “accelerated learning” program that seeks to increase the number of students who graduate from institutions of higher education.

House Speaker Brian Evans, R-Cabot, said Thursday that Arkansas ACCESS is not likely to be heard in committee before early March. He said the bills might see some minor amendments before then.

“It looks to me that it’s going to be a very positive piece of legislation, and I fully expect to see strong support in the House,” Evans said in a press conference.

The new laws

Sanders signed the Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies Act two weeks after announcing the policy. The policy moved fairly smoothly through the legislative process, though some lawmakers expressed concerns about a clause on the final page that would make a child’s fifth birthday the statute of limitations for any actions against alleged medical injuries during birth.

Previously, the law allowed a minor or his or her legal guardian to “commence an action” on an alleged medical injury by the child’s 11th birthday or two years after the injury occurred, depending on which is later.

Some lawmakers said their concerns about reducing this statute of limitations meant they could not vote for the legislation, while others voted for it despite their qualms.

Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families expressed frustration that the law does not expand Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers from 60 days to 12 months after birth. Arkansas is the only state that has not taken advantage of this federal option.

Arkansas has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation, and the third-highest infant mortality rate, according to the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement.

Additionally, at a rate of nearly 19%, Arkansas had the highest prevalence of food insecurity in 2023, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in September.

Sen. Clarke Tucker, D-Little Rock, was among dozens of lawmakers who co-sponsored Act 123. At Thursday’s press conference, he said the law will have “a truly monumental impact” on Arkansas families, and he praised Sanders for following through on her promises to support policies that reduce food insecurity.

In 2023, many of the same lawmakers that sponsored Act 123 put forth Act 656, which eliminated the co-pay for reduced-price school breakfasts and lunches.

Act 123 will be supported by federal funds as well as state general revenue, private grants and taxes from Arkansas’ billion-dollar medical marijuana industry.

The Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance worked on both Act 656 and Act 123, said Patty Barker, the organization’s No Kid Hungry Arkansas campaign director.

“We want to provide students with all the resources they need to thrive in school, and you’ve got to begin with breakfast,” Barker said in an interview.

Arkansas last year opted into the Summer EBT program, a new federal assistance program that provides $120 in food benefits to students during summer break. The Department of Human Services has stated that Summer EBT benefited 260,000 families in 2024, and the state will again participate in the program this year.

Act 122 is the Bell to Bell, No Cell Act, a policy that Sanders and the Arkansas Department of Education offered as a pilot program for public school districts last year. In August, lawmakers allowed the Department of Education to distribute $7 million among school districts to pay for pouches or lockers where students can store their phones during class time.

“Teachers say their students are more engaged, less anxious, and many are happy they no longer have to be the phone police and can actually focus on teaching,” Sanders said, touting the success of the pilot program before signing Act 122.

Sanders and lawmakers have repeatedly warned that excessive access to cell phones and social media has a negative impact on children’s mental health.

“What we’re trying to do is bring back an amazing environment to our schools where [kids] can have authentic, positive relationships, not only with administrators, but also with each other,” Sen. Tyler Dees, R-Siloam Springs, said at the press conference.

Dees and Rep. Jon Eubanks, R-Paris, sponsored both Act 122 and the Social Media Safety Act of 2023, which would have been the first in the nation to require minors to receive parental permission before signing up for a social media account. A federal judge blocked the law in August 2023 before it was set to take effect.

Sanders said in January that the Legislature should amend the Social Media Safety Act this session “so that it’s no longer held up in court and can begin to be enforced.” So far no such legislation has been filed.

Other policies she mentioned in her State of the State address that have yet to be filed as bills include:

The final draft of a revamped state employee pay plan;A ban on foreign “adversaries,” such as the Chinese government, from purchasing farmland in certain areas;The Defense Against Criminal Illegals Act, which Sanders said will give “violent illegal immigrants” harsher penalties for criminal offenses and “remove them from our state.”

She expressed support for allowing property owners to enlist their local sheriff’s offices to remove squatters from their land. House Bill 1049 would do so, and it awaits action in the Senate after passing the House.

Sanders said in December and January that Arkansas will seek permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prohibit food stamp recipients from purchasing highly processed foods and encourage consumption of more nutritious, locally grown foods. Senate Bill 217 would fulfill this promise and awaits a committee hearing.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Free school breakfast, maternal health Medicaid, school cellphone ban all become Arkansas law appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com