Good morning: I have a couple of updates for the group. 1. King County v. Turner. The court in King County v. Turner (the case brought by several local governments arguing the federal government's imposition of conditions on the HUD Continuum of Care grants and the FTA's grants) granted a TRO enjoining the defendants from imposing the disputed conditions. The court first found it had jurisdiction over the case and rejected the Tucker Act arguments. The court's injunction prohibited the defendants from: imposing or enforcing the CoC Grant Conditions, as defined in Plaintiffs' Motion, with respect to any CoC funds awarded to Plaintiffs or members of Plaintiffs' Continuums; (2) rescinding or cancelling the CoC Grant Agreements, or pausing, freezing, impeding, blocking, cancelling, terminating, delaying, withholding, or conditioning CoC funds, based on such Grant Conditions; or (3) requiring Plaintiffs to make any "certification" or other representation related to compliance with the CoC Grant Conditions; imposing or enforcing the FTA Grant Conditions, as defined in Plaintiffs' Motion, with respect to any FTA funds awarded to Plaintiff King County; (2) rescinding or cancelling the FTA grant awards, or pausing, freezing, impeding, blocking, canceling, terminating, delaying, withholding, or conditioning FTA funds, based on such FTA Grant Conditions; (3) requiring King County to make any "certification" or other representation related to compliance with the FTA Grant Conditions; The court reasoned: Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The conditions that Defendants added in March 2025 to Plaintiffs' Continuum of Care grants and King County's Federal Transit Authority grants likely exceed Defendants' authority, as circumscribed by the Constitution. More specifically, Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood that each of the conditions at issue violates the Separation of Powers doctrine by imposing on Plaintiffs certain conditions that were not approved by Congress and are not closely related to the purposes of the grants and the programs they fund, nor do the conditions serve the purpose of making the administration of the grants more efficient and effective. Many of these conditions are also likely void for vagueness and/or violate the APA's proscription on agency action that is arbitrary and capricious The court found that the plaintiffs did not have to post bond. The TRO will remain in place for 14 days (the court notes the plaintiffs' have indicated they plan to seek a PI). You can review the order here: https://www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/2025-05-07-Order-Granting-TRO.pdf. 1. Chicago Women in Trade v. Trump. The Court denied CWIT's motion to broaden the preliminary injunction to preclude enforcement of the Termination Provision of the Unleashing Executive Order against its other four federal funding sources and not just limited to the Department of Labor, which was the original party enjoined. The Court in its original PI decision found CWIT was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the directed termination of "equity-related" grants violated the Spending Clause and the separation of powers with respect to certain specific grants. In this decision, the court distinguished the other grants at issue from the one that it did apply the injunction to because these other grants contained discretionary "may" appropriation language from Congress as opposed to "shall" language. It is worth noting that the federal government made arguments on the separation of powers issue as it relates to Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994). (See p. 4 of the decision). This may not be applicable to some of our other cases as it sounds like it relates to failing to include APA claims, but I note it as I had not seen this argument raised in other cases and we've seen other arguments by the federal government seeking to dispose of cases on jurisdictional or technical grounds. (The court found that the federal government had waived its arguments on this front but even if it had not, found the federal government's arguments unavailing given the Spending Clause issues). You can access the docket here and scroll down to the decision from 5/7 to review it: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69675603/90/chicago-women-in-trades-v-trump/ [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.