DOJ lands legal victory as federal judge allows $800M in grants to be clawed back

The Trump administration landed a legal victory on Monday after a federal judge allowed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington denied a preliminary injunction that five organizations sought against the DOJ’s cancellation of more than 360 grant awards and granted a motion to dismiss the case. 

Metha described the DOJ’s actions as “shameful” in his ruling, though he ultimately declared that the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection.

“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,” Mehta wrote. “But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”

HOW THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT A $14.6B HEALTHCARE FRAUD TAKEDOWN

The DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs canceled more than $800 million in grants in April as part of what it called a priority shift to include more direct support to certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault.

Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm filed the lawsuit, arguing the grant terminations did not allow due process, lacked sufficient clarity and violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers.

DOJ DIRECTS US ATTORNEYS TO SEEK TO REVOKE CITIZENSHIP OF NATURALIZED AMERICANS OVER CRIME

The loss of the federal money triggered layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships, according to many of the organizations that had the grants rescinded.

The Justice Department argued in a court filing that there was “no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.”

Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a “run-of-the mill contract dispute” and said it belonged in a different court.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.