Following up on my previous post, ABA Files Suit Against DOJ's Funding Cuts That Forced Layoffs Of 300 Employees:  American Bar Association v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 25-cv-1263 (D.D.C. May 14, 2025):

Last month, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum prohibiting all Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lawyers from participating in events sponsored by the American Bar Association (“ABA”) on official time. The reason, Blanche candidly explained, was that the ABA had recently joined a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. The next day, DOJ cancelled a series of grants with the ABA that funded services to victims of domestic and sexual violence. The only explanation offered for the cancellation was a terse statement indicating that the grants “no longer effectuate[] . . . [DOJ] priorities.” Connecting these two rather large dots, the ABA promptly filed suit. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that termination of the grants constituted unlawful retaliation against the ABA for exercising its First Amendment right to petition the courts. A motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction preventing DOJ from enforcing the termination soon followed.

The government does not meaningfully contest the merits of the ABA’s First Amendment retaliation claim. It points to no deficiencies in the ABA’s performance of its grant obligations. It concedes that similar grants administered by other organizations remain in place. It agrees that bringing a lawsuit is protected by the First Amendment. And it suggests no other cause for the cancellation apart from the sentiments expressed by Deputy Attorney General Blanche in his memorandum.

Rather, the government objects to the issuance of a preliminary injunction mainly on jurisdictional grounds.

It argues that because the ABA seeks reinstatement of the grants, its claims sound in contract and therefore belong in the Court of Federal Claims, and not this Court, under the Tucker Act. But the ABA’s retaliation claim springs from the First Amendment to the Constitution, not the relevant grant agreements. As a result, this Court has jurisdiction to hear it. And because the First Amendment prohibits the type of reprisal DOJ appears likely to have taken, and the ABA has shown that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief and that the equities and public interest favor it, the Court will grant its motion for a preliminary injunction on its First Amendment retaliation claim. The Court need not, at this juncture, decide whether any of the ABA’s other claims warrant injunctive relief or are subject to dismissal.

• Bloomberg Law, ABA Grant Withdrawal by Trump Administration Halted by Judge
• CNN, Justice Department’s Ending of Grants for Domestic Violence Programs Is Likely Unconstitutional, Judge Finds
• The Hill, Judge Rules DOJ Canceled Grants to Lawyers’ Group as Retaliation For Criticism
• Law360, DC Judge Restores Canceled ABA Domestic Violence Grants
• Politico, Justice Department Must Reinstate ABA Domestic Violence Grants, Judge Says
• Reuters, Judge Temporarily Blocks Canceling of ABA Grants Amid Trump Crackdown
• Eugene Volokh (UCLA), Trump Administration Likely Violated American Bar Association's First Amendment Rights
• Washington Times, Judge Rules Trump DOJ Retaliated Against American Bar Association

Editor's Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.