King County v. Turner

Shortly after coming into office, the Trump administration began attaching political strings to housing, transportation, and health care grants that were authorized by Congress. These conditions required local governments to cooperate fully with immigration enforcement and accept the administration’s policy preferences on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), transgender inclusivity, and abortion access.

Governments who didn’t comply risked losing funding for essential community services, including but not limited to:

• Housing and support for people experiencing homelessness
• Child welfare, senior care, HIV/AIDS services, and other vital programs for vulnerable residents
• Public health services like teen pregnancy prevention, vaccine education, and pandemic preparedness
• Transit infrastructure, including airport repair and expansion, road safety, public transit, and advanced transportation technology

Seventy-five local governments have now joined this unprecedented lawsuit to challenge these conditions. The plaintiffs are represented by Public Rights Project and Pacifica Law Group. In total, $14 billion in grants is at stake in this case.

The case was originally filed on May 2, 2025, by five counties and three cities: King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties in Washington state, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties in California, and the cities of Boston, Mass., Columbus, Ohio, and New York City, NY. Shortly after filing, the court granted its first temporary restraining order blocking the administration from imposing or enforcing the grant conditions.

Thanks to this and subsequent preliminary injunctions, the plaintiffs have been successful in ensuring that there was no stop to federal funding due to these new funding conditions as the case progressed in court.

The lawsuit argues that the administration’s attempts to impose funding conditions on congressionally approved grants violates the separation of powers principle and the Spending Clause, and also violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

May 7, 2025:
A judge granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order, preventing the Trump administration from imposing or enforcing grant conditions, rescinding or canceling grants, or requiring certifications for 14 days. 

Read the decision.

May 23, 2025:
A federal court granted a second temporary restraining order after 23 new plaintiffs joined the case. The ruling protected jurisdictions who had a deadline as early as May 27 to agree with the unlawful grant conditions or lose funding, such as Columbus, OH.

The addition of the new plaintiffs brought the amount of housing and transportation grants at stake in the case to $4 billion.

Read the order.

Read the amended complaint.

June 3, 2025:
The court converted the two temporary restraining orders into one preliminary injunction order. The decision was extended to include all grants from the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Continuum of Care program, which distributes funds to end homelessness.
This preliminary injunction prohibits the agencies from:

• Refusing to process grant agreements where plaintiffs changed or removed conditions already blocked by the court
• Rejecting agreements based on a plaintiff’s participation in the lawsuit

Read the order.

July 10, 2025:
Twenty-nine additional local governments joined the case, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 60 and the total funds at stake to $12 billion. The case was also expanded to include grants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for essential services, including child welfare, public health, and civil rights programs, and all grants from HUD, beyond the Continuum of Care program.

Read the second amended complaint.

July 14, 2025:
The plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to extend legal protections to the newly added plaintiffs and additional affected grant programs while the case proceeds.

Read the request

August 12, 2025:

The court issued a second preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from adding the conditions in question to grants from HUD and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), as well as competitive grants from HHS. It also prevents the administration from delaying, not issuing, or refusing to process these grants to local governments who have joined the lawsuit. The protections were also extended to the 29 new plaintiffs.

At this stage, nearly 100 declarations had been submitted by local governments detailing the serious and irreversible harm that would be caused by the loss of these grants. These were carefully considered by the court.

Read the decision.

November 10, 2025:
Fifteen additional local governments joined the case, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 75 and the total funds at stake to $14 billion. 

Public Rights Project asked the court to extend the previous preliminary injunction to include these new plaintiffs, as well as three existing plaintiffs who were not protected under the earlier filing for HHS and HUD grants.

Read the third amended complaint.

January 21, 2026:
The court issued a third preliminary injunction granting the request filed on November 10.

It once again rejected the federal government’s arguments on the basis that grant recipients shouldn’t be forced to choose between the Trump administration’s interpretation of anti-discrimination laws, especially when coupled with a requirement to certify compliance or face penalties, and the law as determined by what courts have actually ruled.

Read the decision.