In a pivotal legal setback for the Trump administration, a federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump has issued a temporary restraining order, blocking proposed cuts to billions in public health funding.
The administration had claimed the funds were no longer needed, arguing that “the pandemic had ended,” and therefore, these public health grants, totaling $11 billion were expendable. However, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Rhode Island disagreed, delivering a blow to the administration’s plan to redirect or eliminate the unspent funds.
States Push Back to Protect Vital Health Funds
The move to slash the grants sparked immediate legal resistance. A coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit to stop what they called an unlawful rollback of federal commitments. These funds were earmarked for essential health programs from disease prevention to elderly care and immunization efforts.
“They make a case, a strong case, for the fact that they will succeed on the merits, so I’m going to grant the temporary restraining order,” said Judge McElroy during the ruling.
Pennsylvania Governor Praises Legal Victory
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, celebrated the ruling as a significant win for the state and its public health infrastructure.
“We just won in court to stop the Trump Administration’s illegal cuts of more than half a billion dollars in public health grants owed to Pennsylvania,” wrote Shapiro.
He emphasized the stakes, stating, “These dollars have been committed to us for critical priorities like mitigating HPAI and measles, providing long-term care for older adults, and ensuring access to immunizations for children.”
Shapiro added, “As a result of taking the Administration to court, these dollars will now start flowing again. I’ll keep standing up to defend Pennsylvania taxpayers, permanently reverse these unlawful cuts, and hold the federal government to the commitments it has made to our Commonwealth.”
Trump Appointee Sides Against Trump Team
The judge presiding over the case, Mary McElroy, was nominated by Trump in 2019. Her decision to block the cuts underscores the growing pattern of judicial checks on the administration’s more controversial actions — even from judges it appointed.
President Trump and his supporters have long complained about judicial interference derailing their policy goals. However, legal scholars continue to point out that such checks are a foundational part of constitutional governance.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” wrote Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in a brief statement, indirectly pushing back against suggestions that judges opposing administration actions should be removed.
What’s Next in the Legal Fight?
For now, the restraining order ensures that the contested $11 billion in health grants will remain intact while the court examines the full merits of the case. Whether the administration will appeal the decision remains to be seen.
As public health agencies and state leaders breathe a temporary sigh of relief, the broader legal battle over pandemic-era funding and federal authority is just beginning.
