Judge Mulls Harm to States From Trump Order Shuttering Agencies

A bid to temporarily revive three small federal agencies gutted by executive order will likely hinge on whether the plaintiff states can show they would be irreparably harmed by the president’s action.

Judge John McConnell, an Obama appointee to the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island, grilled attorneys for the coalition of 21 states and the Trump administration on the issue of standing during a Friday preliminary injunction hearing.

The case could determine the fate of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Minority Business Development Agency—among the more than half a dozen agencies targeted in President Donald Trump’s March 14 executive order directing lay offs and eliminating functions to continue “the reduction of the federal bureacracy.”

McConnell seemed to agree with the states that the administration had closed down the agencies, pushing back against Department of Justice attorney Abigail Stout, who said the layoffs were within the executive’s powers and didn’t touch the agencies’ statutory mandate.

FMCS is left with 15 employees, the IMLS placed 85% of its staff on administrative leave and terminated its grant programs, and the MBDA has been left with no staff after the executive order, according to evidence submitted by the states.

“The president doesn’t want these three agencies to exist,” the judge said. “It’s his discretion to make those decisions but the reality here is that he’s in-effect closed down three agencies that Congress statutorily allowed and funded.”

But McConnell seemed more uncertain over whether the states could show the level harm that a preliminary injunction order requires.

Demonstrating proper standing has proven to be a tricky needle to thread for plaintiffs suing the government. Labor unions representing federal workers have been rebuffed by the courts for skirting administrative appeals processes–even though those have been rendered ineffective by the administration.

A group of Democratic states also saw their bid to get an injunction against the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to agency data turned down by a federal judge in the District of Columbia on standing issues.

Stout pointed to the states’ FMCS claims as an example of speculative harms that don’t satisfy standing. She argued that the damage hinges on an unknown labor dispute arising, the parties being unable to settle the dispute, FMCS being unavailable to mediate, and then that dispute resulting in a work stoppage.

“It’s a very long, attenuated series of speculative actions that would still not rise to the level of irreparable harms,” she said, calling it a “series of what-ifs”.

Natalya Buckler, Rhode Island’s assistant attorney general, countered with examples of harm that the states are already experiencing, like the temporary closings of local libraries and the cancellation of grants for small businesses. Buckler also pointed out that future injury may suffice for standing if it’s “certainly impending.”

“That is exactly what we have here. It hasn’t happened today but it certainly will tomorrow,” she said. “The government can’t pick out one or two examples and say those don’t meet the threshold, when we have multiple examples that show the opposite.”

The case is Rhode Island v. Trump, D.R.I., No. 1:25-cv-00128, hearing 4/18/25.