Federal Grant Conditions Imposed by Trump Get Blocked in Court

The Trump administration was blocked in court Wednesday from conditioning congressionally approved grant funds on fulfilling policy goals.

The suing US cities and counties led by Fresno, Calif., have shown there are serious questions as to whether Congress authorized such conditions on the grants and whether or not they’re even germane to relevant federal grant programs, Judge Richard Seeborg said in an order.

The plaintiffs have alsoshown there are serious questions whether the conditions violate the US Constitution’s Spending Clause, the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act, Seeborg said. The US District Court for the Northern District of California granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining agencies like the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Health and Human Services from enforcing the conditions.

They sued on Aug. 20, alleging the Trump administration imposed “vague and unauthorized conditions” on grant funds by mandating that they remove all references to the words “equity” and “environmental justice,” and all transgender references.

The suit targets multiple executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, most recently including one from Aug. 7 mandating grant awards to advance the president’s policy priorities. The order said the funds can’t be used to further goals related to racial preferences, denial of “the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic,” illegal immigration, or other “anti-American values.”

Fresno received a letter on Aug. 18 from HUD questioning the accuracy of its certification that its grant funds would be used “in conformity with applicable laws, including executive orders.”

The plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief since they must choose between certifying compliance with “likely unconstitutional conditions or forgoing key federal grant funding,” Seeborg wrote. The balance of equities and public interest also favors the plaintiffs since they must have clarity about their budgets and programmatic capacities to provide public services.

Seeborg denied the administration’s request for a bond to be posted by the plaintiffs for security purposes under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, saying the government isn’t facing a realistic likelihood of harm. He pointed out in the order that at least five district courts have granted injunctive relief halting enforcement of grant conditions requiring compliance with Trump’s executive orders.

Renne Public Law Group LLP represents the plaintiffs.

The case is City of Fresno v. Turner, N.D. Cal., No. 3:25-cv-07070, order 8/27/25.