At a Glance
- Judge Vernon Broderick extends temporary hold on federal child-care funds for 5 states.
- Funding pause originally based on suspected fraud; states say it targets political rivals.
- The order keeps more than $10 billion a year flowing to low-income families.
Why it matters: The decision preserves essential aid for 1.3 million children and sets a legal precedent on how federal funds can be withheld.
A federal judge on Friday extended a temporary hold on federal child-care and family assistance programs in California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York. The ruling keeps the programs running for at least two more weeks while the legal challenge over the funding freeze moves through the courts.
Background
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had paused funding to the five states earlier this month because it had “reason to believe” the states were granting benefits to people who were in the country illegally. HHS did not provide evidence or explain why it was targeting those states and not others. The states argue that the move is intended to damage President Donald Trump’s political adversaries.
The programs at issue are:
- Child Care and Development Fund – subsidizes child care for 1.3 million children from low-income families nationwide.
- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) – provides cash assistance and job training.
- Social Services Block Grant – a smaller fund that supports a variety of community programs.
Together, the states receive more than $10 billion a year from these programs.
HHS Letters and Data Requests
HHS sent letters to the states on January 5 and January 6 informing them they would be placed on “restricted drawdown” of program money until the states supplied more information. For TANF and the Social Services Block Grant, the request required states to submit data, including personal information of recipients beginning in 2022, with a deadline of January 20.
The data requested includes:
- Names and Social Security numbers of program beneficiaries.
- Records of how funds were distributed.
- Documentation of compliance with anti-fraud measures.
The states say producing the data is an “impossible demand on an impossible timeline.”
Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued earlier this month, giving the states a reprieve from the administration’s plan to halt funding unless they provided the requested information. The TRO was set to expire on Friday, the same day the judge extended the hold.
The judge noted he would decide later whether the money should remain in place while the challenge works its way through the courts.
States’ Legal Arguments
In court papers last week, the states claimed the funding freeze does not follow the law. They argue:
- Congress established specific procedures for identifying non-compliance or fraud.
- The federal government has not followed those procedures.
- Broadly freezing funding because of potential fraud is improper.
- The data request is impossible to meet in the given timeframe.
The states also maintain that the freeze is unlawful and politically motivated.
Administration’s Counter-Position
In a court filing this week, the administration objected to the states describing the action as a “funding freeze,” even though the HHS announcement headline read: “HHS Freezes Child Care and Family Assistance Grants in Five States for Fraud Concerns.” Federal government lawyers said the states could receive money going forward if they provide the requested information and the federal government finds them compliant with anti-fraud measures.
The administration notes it has continued to provide funding to the states, a fact it says the court has ordered.
Legal and Practical Implications
The judge’s decision keeps essential services running for low-income families while the legal dispute continues. It also raises questions about:
- The extent to which the federal government can withhold funds without following statutory procedures.
- The balance between preventing fraud and ensuring timely support for vulnerable populations.
- The political ramifications of targeting states perceived as opponents.
The case will likely proceed to a higher court, where the question of whether the freeze is lawful will be examined.
Timeline of Key Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 5-6 | HHS letters sent to states demanding data. |
| January 20 | Deadline for states to submit requested data. |
| Early this month | Temporary restraining order issued, suspending the freeze. |
| Friday | Judge extends temporary hold for two more weeks. |
Takeaways
- The temporary extension preserves funding for more than $10 billion a year, supporting 1.3 million children and countless families.
- The legal battle centers on whether the federal government followed proper procedures before halting funds.
- The outcome will influence future federal-state interactions over child-care and family assistance programs.
—
This article was reported by Aiden V. Crossfield.
