President Donald Trump’s administration faced two legal setbacks on Friday when federal judges blocked separate efforts related to election funding and billions of dollars for child care and social services in Democratic-led states.
In Seattle, U.S. District Judge John H. Chun halted the Trump administration from enforcing key elements of a March executive order on elections against Washington and Oregon. These states primarily conduct elections by mail. Chun’s order prevented the administration from pressuring these states to change their ballot acceptance and voter registration methods by threatening federal election assistance funding, as reported in the ruling.
The executive order aimed to require proof of citizenship for voter registration and insisted all mail ballots be received by Election Day, instead of just postmarked by that date, risking federal funding. Washington and Oregon argued that this order would disenfranchise voters since their laws count ballots arriving after Election Day if they are postmarked on time.
Chun stated the president did not have the authority to impose new election rules on states or to attach conditions to federal funds without congressional approval. “The President has no authority to unilaterally impose new conditions on federal funds,” Chun wrote.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown described the decision as “a huge victory” for voters in Washington and Oregon, according to the Associated Press. The White House expressed confidence in the end result. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson remarked that the ruling was “not the final say on the matter,” and the administration “expects ultimate victory on the issue,” as reported by Newsweek.
In a separate case in New York, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian temporarily blocked the Trump administration from freezing over $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance programs in five Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York.
The states filed a lawsuit after the Department of Health and Human Services attempted to pause funding linked to three programs, including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and child care and social services grants. They argued that the federal government lacked the authority to stop funds appropriated by Congress and that the freeze would disrupt services for families. Subramanian issued a temporary restraining order to maintain the flow of funds while the lawsuit continues.
Reuters reported that the administration claimed it acted out of concerns about potential fraud and allegations that benefits might have gone to noncitizens. The states countered that these claims were unproven and did not justify the broad freeze across five states.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the plaintiffs, criticized the funding halt and welcomed the court’s intervention. The Washington Post reported that James described the decision as a “critical victory for families” affected by the freeze.
These two rulings came as the Trump administration sought to implement wide-ranging policy changes through executive actions and directives, which have faced legal challenges from states and advocacy groups. The election case adds to ongoing legal disputes over federal involvement in election administration, where states manage most procedures and Congress sets federal standards.
The social services case focuses on whether the executive branch can pause or impose conditions on congressionally appropriated funds based on policy disagreements or suspected misuse without specific findings. For now, the judge’s order keeps major funding streams available for the five states while litigation continues.
