In a significant (if temporary) victory for the American Bar Association, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Justice, halting the termination of grants that fund services to victims of domestic and sexual violence.
DOJ Targets ABA Funding
The dispute began when Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche released a memorandum. This memo specifically prohibited Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers from participating in events sponsored by the American Bar Association (ABA) during official work hours. The reason for this prohibition was clearly stated: the ABA had recently joined a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. This action by the ABA seemed to trigger a series of swift and consequential actions by the DOJ.
In an abrupt move following Blanche’s memo, the DOJ decided to cancel several grants that were previously awarded to the ABA. These grants were crucial as they funded services under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provides support and resources for victims of domestic and sexual violence.
The DOJ's decision to revoke these grants came with minimal explanation. They offered only a brief statement justifying their action, claiming that these grants “no longer effectuate [DOJ] priorities.” The lack of detailed reasoning left many questions unanswered about what those priorities are or how they had shifted so dramatically.
The ABA swiftly filed suit, alleging that termination of these grants constituted unlawful retaliation for exercising its First Amendment rights. The complaint included multiple claims, but it was primarily anchored in First Amendment retaliation. The ABA originally brought their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and their case was presided over by Judge Christopher R. Cooper.
Perhaps the DOJ intuited that the judge might rule against them, but for whatever reason, they wanted out of that courtroom badly.
DOJ's Jurisdictional Gambit
The DOJ presented a jurisdictional argument rooted in contract law principles aiming to redirect the proceedings from that D.C. court. They contended that since the ABA sought reinstatement of grants, the case should be heard by the Court of Federal Claims rather than a district court.
The crux of DOJ's argument lay in its assertion that the ABA's claims pertained to cooperative agreements between the government and the ABA — essentially contractual in nature. Under the Tucker Act, claims against the United States that are founded upon any express or implied contract and seek monetary relief typically fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims if they exceed $10,000. Since these grants involved potential monetary relief exceeding $10,000, the DOJ argued they should be adjudicated as contract disputes under this specialized court's purview.
If this all sounds very petty to you, keep one thing in mind: this was basically the DOJ’s entire legal argument. Although they could have tried, they didn’t meaningfully contest the merits of the ABA’s claim at all. They were trying to get it kicked out of the court and overseen by someone who might be friendlier to their argument on the merits.
But who gets to decide the question of jurisdiction? Well, the very judge that the DOJ was trying to escape in the first place.
Judge Cooper Keeps the Case
And that judge didn’t see things the same way. Judge Cooper rejected the DOJ’s attempt at a jurisdictional shift. He clarified that, at its core, the ABA’s claim was actually not about contracts, but rather about constitutional rights — specifically First Amendment retaliation. He emphasized that while there might be references to contractual elements within their complaint, these did not transform it into a contract action under Tucker Act parameters. The upshot was that the D.C. court determined that jurisdiction rightly belonged within his court’s domain.
Judge Cooper also kept the DOJ from brandishing the shield of sovereign immunity. He noted that sovereign immunity does not bar suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief against federal officers when they are accused of unconstitutional actions. Constitutional claims can pierce through typical sovereign protections when governmental actions infringe upon fundamental rights like those enshrined in the First Amendment. Despite the general protection offered by sovereign immunity, Judge Cooper found jurisdiction to hear the ABA’s constitutional claim rather than having to dismiss outright due to sovereign immunity concerns.
Injunction Halts DOJ Retaliation
Moving to the merits, Judge Cooper delivered a strong rebuke to DOJ’s actions.
He granted the ABA a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of success of their First Amendment retaliation claim. The judge clearly thought that the injunction was necessary. “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” he wrote, quoting Supreme Court precedent and highlighting how DOJ’s actions potentially deterred free speech and punished protected activities.
Judge Cooper meticulously connected dots between recent criticisms by the ABA against President Trump’s administration and DOJ’s retaliatory actions. Just weeks prior to grant cancellations, ABA criticized the Trump Administration’s efforts undermining judicial legitimacy. The ABA also joined lawsuits challenging government policies. Both of these actions are considered “protected speech” under First Amendment provisions. Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s memo was pivotal in demonstrating retaliatory intent as it explicitly linked policy changes toward ABA engagement with their litigation stance against government positions — an act deemed retaliatory by Judge Cooper.
Ruling's Ripple Effect
With over $3 million at stake across five active grants from the Office on Violence Against Women supporting projects such as civil litigation skills and LGBTQI+ training initiatives, Judge Cooper's ruling prevents immediate financial harm. The injunction will preserve vital services rendered by the Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, which relies on these funds.
While this injunction is temporary pending further litigation outcomes, it represents an essential safeguard for organizations facing potential governmental reprisals for exercising free speech. The broader implications could influence how similar cases are adjudicated concerning government funding tied to advocacy activities.
As noted by Judge Cooper: “Government actions in contravention of the Constitution are always contrary to public interest.”
Related Resources:
- Court Curbs Trump's Power to Deport Venezuelans as 'Alien Enemies' (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- SCOTUS Clears Path for Trump's Trans Military Ban (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- Domestic Violence Laws (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
