President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval White House office on February 3, 2025 in Washington (photo of Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Washington – a federal judge will decide in a “right time” whether to issue a preliminary order blocking Trump’s administration before implementing the type of freezing in the field of financing the subsidies and loans, which he tried to perform at the end of January before a separate court order blocked it before entering.
District judge Loren L. Alikhan from the American District Court of the Colombia District, which First he issued an administrative stay in the case earlier Submitting a temporary order to stopShe did not give a exact schedule when she issued another ruling after Thursday’s interrogation. Tro -Alikhana will remain in force until she issued a decision on the preliminary order.
A temporary order for restraint usually lasts for a shorter period than a preliminary order, which can last for months or years.
Kevin Friedl, senior adviser to the democracy of the attacker and one of the lawyers representing organizations that filed a lawsuit, argued during the interrogation of Alinhan, should issue a preliminary order to prevent Trump’s administration together with plans to block funds for organizations throughout the country.
Friedl said that the order should be of fundamental importance, not only to four organizations that filed a lawsuit and their members. These organizations include the National Council of Nonfits, American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance and Sage.
Friedl said that these organizations have experienced violations of their rights to the first amendment as a result of freezing in the budget management and financing office. Groups are now worried that if they “do not accept political positions” of the Trump administration, they can be blocked from receiving federal subsidies and loans in the future.
The prosecutor of the Department of Justice Daniel Schwei called the judge not to issue a preliminary order, noticing that OMB had repealed the original note shortly after the judge issued a brief -term administrative stay.
All preliminary orders, said Schwei, would be “a speculative proposal by nature,” that OMB will issue another note to freeze the financing of subsidies and loans. He added that, according to MODA, the whole thing has been debatable since OMB canceled the note.
Schwei said that the only question that the judge should consider is whether the court should continue to block the executive from “potential future activities”.
During the interrogation about the intention of the OMB note, she also had a debate, including how her grammar and commas could affect someone’s understanding of its effects.
The OMB note began a legal battle
The case began at the end of January, when the Management and Budget Office was issued Double -sided note Managing federal departments and agencies to stop financing some subsidies and loans.
The OMB decision, which was to be implemented within 24 hours, sent organizations throughout the country and members of the Congress who try to understand how many organizations will be affected by the proposed freezing of financing and how long it will last.
The Trump administration released social insurance and Medicare from freezing in the footnote in the original note. But the press secretary of the White House Karoline Leavitt was not able to say during the initial press briefing whether Medicaid would be affected or provide a list of specific programs subject to the freezing of financing.
OMB later issued another document He sought to explain which programs were not taken into account, although she did not provide the list exactly which programs were to stop their financing by the OMB note.
AND A separate, long document From OMB, it seemed to show thousands of programs affected by the original total notebook of dollars in federal assistance.
Two lawsuits were quickly filed in response to the freezing funding proposed by OMB – National Council of Nonfits against the Management and Budget Office, which is supervised by Alikhan and State of New York against Trumpwho was submitted by democratic general prosecutors and is supervised by a federal judge on Rhode Island.
Both judges issued their own temporary orders in matters.
Main Judge John J. McConnell Jr. From the American District Court at Rhode Island, he planned a trial regarding an application for a preliminary order in this matter on Friday.
Dojad wants the required bond
Thursday interrogation also included a debate on whether a potential preliminary order should include a requirement regarding bonds or financial guarantee from the organizations that submitted the case.
Friedl said that the request of the Department of Justice for the bond was “honestly absurd”, and the attempt to “take revenge” against organizations that filed a lawsuit.
“I would characterize it as a disturbing new development,” said Friedl.
Alinhan did not comment on the request for a bond during the trial, except that she considered her “interesting”.
Schwei argued that the bond was necessary if the court contains a preliminary order, because Trump’s administration may spend federal dollars on programs that he does not want.
He did not provide the dollar amount for how much he wanted the judge to demand in the bonds, but he said that it depends on how the wide judge writes a potential preliminary order.
