← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump (Women Trades)

No. 1:25-cv-02005 District · Active Active


The Facts

Chicago Women in Trades, a nonprofit training organization, received federal grants under the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act. The Trump administration terminated the grant program. The organization filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging the termination violated the statute and the APA's procedural requirements.

The Application

History

The Trump administration's termination of the grant program under the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act raises a core APA question: whether the agency provided reasoned explanation for ending a congressionally authorized program and complied with any statutory procedures governing such termination. Chicago Women in Trades contends that the sudden termination, without demonstrating statutory compliance or justifying the policy reversal, violates the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The court must determine whether the administration's asserted reasons meet the governing statute's requirements and whether the agency followed required procedural steps, or whether the decision amounts to an unexplained departure from statutory directives that Congress imposed on the executive branch.

The Conclusion

Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump represents active litigation challenging executive branch termination of congressionally authorized workforce development grants. The case illustrates the legal friction between executive discretion over grant programs and statutory obligations to fund programs Congress has authorized, and is pending resolution in federal district court.

Court -
FiledFeb 26, 2025
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly 42
CL StatusActive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

No Supreme Court data for this case.

- TMR-173af95d Jul 11, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

Chicago Women in Trades sued following the Trump administration's termination of federal grant programs supporting women in construction trades, alleging the termination violated applicable statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act. The litigation involved preliminary injunction proceedings in federal district court in Illinois.

Facts

Chicago Women in Trades, a nonprofit training organization, received federal grants under the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act. The Trump administration terminated the grant program. The organization filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging the termination violated the statute and the APA's procedural requirements.

Issue

Whether the Trump administration's termination of federal grant funding for women's construction trades training programs violated applicable statutory requirements and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Rule

Agency actions terminating congressionally authorized grant programs must comply with the authorizing statute's requirements and the APA's procedural standards. An agency's failure to provide reasoned explanation or to follow statutory procedures for termination may render the action arbitrary and capricious.

Analysis

The Trump administration's termination of the grant program under the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act raises a core APA question: whether the agency provided reasoned explanation for ending a congressionally authorized program and complied with any statutory procedures governing such termination. Chicago Women in Trades contends that the sudden termination, without demonstrating statutory compliance or justifying the policy reversal, violates the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The court must determine whether the administration's asserted reasons meet the governing statute's requirements and whether the agency followed required procedural steps, or whether the decision amounts to an unexplained departure from statutory directives that Congress imposed on the executive branch.

Conclusion

Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump represents active litigation challenging executive branch termination of congressionally authorized workforce development grants. The case illustrates the legal friction between executive discretion over grant programs and statutory obligations to fund programs Congress has authorized, and is pending resolution in federal district court.

Notes

CL-verified 2026-06-04 | Item-5 Trump gap | Max approved 2026-06-05 | Iris executed 2026-06-06

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support