ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) - A Virginia-based federal judge temporarily halted the creation of President Donald Trump's anti-weaponization fund Friday pending a challenge lodged by a collection of individuals and organizations targeted by the Justice Department.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema wrote in a two-page order that the freeze would ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed prior to the pending litigation. The order comes a week after the plaintiffs challenged the $1.776 billion fund, arguing it benefits only those aligned with the Trump administration in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
"Today, a federal court recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the legality of that program can be fully reviewed by the court," Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "This is a victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people. No administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program that Congress never authorized. We look forward to the next stages in this case."
Brinkema declined the plaintiffs' request to expedite the briefing and a hearing schedule for the pending motion for a temporary restraining order, stating the court would benefit from full briefing. The Bill Clinton appointee granted the Justice Department's motion requesting additional time to respond, delaying the hearing from June 5 to June 12.
The plaintiffs - which include nonprofit organizations National Abortion Federation and Common Cause - claim the Justice Department refused to confirm that it wouldn't begin disbursing funds until the court addressed their concerns. The plaintiffs further contend that without the freeze, the Justice Department could swiftly disperse the funds, making any future ruling moot.
"The Trump-Vance administration attempted to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded program that rewards political allies, operates without oversight, and evades the constitutional safeguards that protect our democracy," Omar H. Noureldin, senior vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, said in a statement. "We are grateful that the court recognized the urgency of the situation and acted to preserve the status quo before further irreparable harm occurred."
Among the plaintiffs are former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd, who led a task force that prosecuted individuals involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and California State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, whom a jury acquitted of assaulting a federal officer during an immigration raid protest.
Also suing is the city of New Haven, Connecticut, which the administration has targeted for its relaxed immigration policies.
"New Haveners want their federal taxpayer dollars to be used for critical government functions and services like public safety, infrastructure, Medicare and Social Security - not to advance President Trump's personal political interests," New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker said in a statement.
The plaintiffs say the fund - created as a result of a settlement between Trump and the IRS in a case concerning the leaking of his tax records - unconstitutionally exceeds executive authority, bypasses Congress' exclusive authority over federal spending and appropriations and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Department of Justice announced on May 19 that it would set up the nearly $1.8 billion fund to provide a "systematic process" for people seeking relief for claims of "weaponization and lawfare" by the federal government. The DOJ's judgment fund will pay for the $1.776 billion reserve.
Critics, including lawmakers from both parties, have framed it as a "slush fund" for the president's political allies and worried that it opened an avenue for people convicted of violent crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot to seek financial restitution. The plaintiffs argue the fund lacks proper oversight because it doesn't require judicial review, nor does it require the DOJ to disclose the identities of claimants or the amounts they are compensated.
The plaintiffs also say the fund is unconstitutional in that it won't provide relief for those Republican officials targeted. They claim the implied viewpoint discrimination runs afoul of the First Amendment.
The DOJ claims the fund isn't without precedent, citing a 2011 settlement in the case Keepseagle v. Vilsack, which it says is structurally identical to its new fund.
The Obama-era agreement approved $680 million in funds for Native Americans who accused the government of discriminating against tribal farmers.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche admitted when the fund was unveiled that no federal judge had approved the DOJ's new program, but insisted it did not make a "big difference." He said that while a judge signed off on the Keepseagle agreement, the courts had "nothing to do" with handling the money involved.
"The only thing illegal and corrupt about this situation is the brazen weaponization of federal resources by previous administrations to retaliate against those with opposing political beliefs," a Justice Department spokesperson told Courthouse News in an email. "This department will continue to expose this lawfare and ensure those who experienced injustices are made whole."
Source: Courthouse News Service
