The circuit court ruled that the case belongs in Federal Claims Court, so the district judge has no jurisdiction.
The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently found that a district judge does not have jurisdiction over the payment of grants suspended by President Trump’s administration. The judge had issued a permanent injunction requiring the administration to reinstate environmental and agricultural grant payouts that were halted or terminated early last year.
The Fourth Circuit determined that the claims are contractual, citing the Supreme Court ruling last year that stated, “The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on ‘any express or implied contract with the United States.’”
“The core of [P]laintiffs’ suit alleges that the Government unlawfully terminated their grants,” the appellate court stated. The plaintiffs’ “injury and alleged right to payment stem from the government’s refusal to pay promised grants according to the terms and conditions that accompany them” and, therefore, belong in the Court of Federal Claims rather than a district court.
The appellate court also found that the plaintiffs identified no statute that prohibits the federal government from freezing or terminating the grants in question. The decision found that the district judge’s remedy of having the grant funding immediately restored was made in error.
As the Lord Leads, Pray with Us…
- For circuit court judges as they hear cases involving the overreach of district courts.
- For wisdom for the justices and judges of the federal judiciary as they review challenges to President Trump’s actions and policies.
Sources: CourtListener, Red State, Law.com, Bloomberg Law
