SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A coalition of California and Oregon cities and counties asked a federal judge Wednesday to block the Trump administration from imposing or enforcing “unlawful and unauthorized” grant conditions targeting federal funds allocated for public safety, public health and environmental programs.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick indicated he would grant the plaintiffs CALL for a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, but was skeptical about the plaintiffs’ claims against the Interior Department.
“Overall, I see no problem with plaintiffs’ causes of action that are based on the alleged unconstitutionality of immigration, DEI, and antidiscrimination executive orders that caused DHS, DOJ, and DOI to add allegedly unconstitutional or illegal conditions to various grant programs,” he said.
However, the Barack Obama appointee noted that there were no plaintiff municipalities located in the Northern District of California that had applied for grants from the Department of the Interior, with the city of Santa Cruz only saying they were “interested” in doing so.
He added that he had no problem with municipalities outside the Northern District of California being part of the lawsuit, nor was there any concern with municipalities applying for different grant programs within the same agency, as long as they applied for one grant.
“My inclination is to grant injunctive relief to the lawsuit narrowing down to the grants for which the plaintiffs have applied,” he said.
The plaintiffs — who include the California cities of Fresno, Santa Clara, Redwood City, Santa Cruz and Stockton, as well as San Diego, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, along with the Oregon cities of Beaverton, Corvallis and Hillsboro — say they have either been awarded, applied for or intend to apply for a series of funding conditions from the department.
Counties and cities accuse the agencies of unlawfully conditioning funds appropriated by Congress by requiring grant recipients to adhere to President Donald Trump’s anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, and comply with all executive orders related to the grants.
Ryan McGinley-Stempel, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that municipalities that have not applied for grants but intend to apply if not for the illegal conditions also face irreparable harm because the conditions are still affecting their bottom line.
“When these municipalities are doing their annual long-term fiscal planning, they have to decide whether to include federal funds in the budget, and their inability to do that … still does that irreparable damage that can’t be corrected after the fact,” he said.
McGinley-Stempel also encouraged Orrick not to limit any potential order to only the grants listed in the complaint, arguing that there are new grant opportunities available regularly.
A stricter preliminary injunction would require plaintiffs to go back to court and ask a judge to extend the injunction every time one of the plaintiffs applies for a grant with unconstitutional terms, he said.
However, Jevechius Bernardoni, representing the DOJ, countered that any court order should extend only to those named in the complaint, arguing that those disputes are “unknown.”
“We have to address what is before the court and if future events occur, we can address them when they occur, when we have a clear understanding of the facts,” he said.
Bernardoni also said he agreed with Orrick’s preliminary thoughts on the stay, stating that if a municipality hasn’t actually applied for a grant, they don’t have the right to challenge the terms.
He added that the government believes the court does not have the power to issue a preliminary injunction against the DOI because there are no plaintiffs in the District of California to bring claims against the agency.
Orrick told the parties he would obtain an order “as soon as possible.”
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This isn’t the first time Fresno has filed a lawsuit ANTI administration regarding its attempt to withhold funds from municipalities that do not comply with executive orders and other administration policy preferences.
In August 2025, the city and other entities sued the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency over grant conditions requiring compliance with Trump’s policy preferences regarding DEI, “gender ideology,” “choice abortion,” and federal immigration enforcement.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg, a Barack Obama appointee, later agreed with the plaintiffs. CALL as a precaution, and in August 2026, extended order to cover the additional localities of the plaintiff.
Additionally, in November, Orrick trapped Department of Homeland Security from withholding disaster preparedness grants from local governments that refuse to adhere to federal anti-DEI policies and vague conditions requiring compliance with unspecified executive orders attached to the grants.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
