The Trump administration has been open about its reluctance to allocate funds authorized by Congress under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. However, on Tuesday, a federal judge issued an order directing the agencies to resume funding, effectively “turning the funding spigots back on.”

During President Donald Trump’s tenure, federal agencies have utilized his executive orders to justify withholding congressionally approved grants and contracts, many of which had already been awarded. Nevertheless, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, ruled that the administration’s actions were “neither reasonable nor reasonably explained.”

Judge McElroy stated, “The broad powers that the Office of Management and Budget, the National Economic Council Director, and the five Agencies claim are not found in federal law.” This assertion underscores the judge’s decision to reject the administration’s claims of unlimited authority.

The lawsuit involves five federal agencies, including the EPA, Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior, which are being sued by five separate plaintiffs. For instance, the Childhood Lead Action Project, which received $500,000 to combat childhood lead poisoning in Rhode Island, is suing the EPA.

This case is distinct from another lawsuit in which the Trump administration instructed Citibank to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in funds held in nonprofits’ bank accounts. In that case, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration, specifically the EPA, acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner when terminating contracts with three nonprofits, resulting in a temporary restraining order that granted the nonprofits access to their funds.

Judge McElroy acknowledged that the Trump administration has the right to steer the country in a certain direction, albeit with limitations. The judge emphasized that the judiciary’s role is not to evaluate the soundness of the president’s policies but to ensure that the government follows the proper procedures when enacting those policies.

As McElroy wrote, “The Court wants to be crystal clear: elections have consequences, and the President is entitled to enact his agenda. The judiciary does not and cannot decide whether his policies are sound.” However, the judge also noted that the federal courts have a constitutional obligation to intervene when the government fails to follow proper procedures.

The judge added, “But where the federal courts are constitutionally required to weigh in — meaning we, by law, have no choice but to do so — are cases ‘about the procedure’ (or lack thereof) that the Government follows in trying to enact those policies.”

Many companies and nonprofits have objected to the Trump administration’s control over executive branch departments and agencies, arguing that it is an attempt to undo the effects of legislation passed by Congress and signed into law under the previous administration. Through court filings, these entities have expressed their opposition to the administration’s actions.

In this case, Judge McElroy agrees with the plaintiffs, stating that “Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a President’s agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration.” This ruling highlights the limitations of executive power and the importance of following established procedures when enacting policies.