← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Rhode Island v. Trump (RI Agencies Appeal 2026)

No. 26-1070 Circuit · Active Active
Court
1st Cir.
ca1
Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Filed (CL)
Jan 21, 2026
CL Status
active

Case Overview

The government appealed Judge McConnell's order granting summary judgement for a coalition of states which enjoins the federal government from making any further actions related to the dismantling of IMLS, MBDA, FMCS, and USICH.


The Application

History

Judge McConnell granted summary judgment for the coalition of states, finding the government lacked statutory authority or failed to follow proper APA procedures to dismantle these agencies and that the threatened harms to the states justified preliminary injunctive relief.

The Conclusion

The injunction remains in effect, prohibiting the government from making further actions related to dismantling the four named agencies and programs, pending the First Circuit's review of the government's appeal.

Federal Court TMR-6d6106d3 Federal Funding Freeze <br> Appeal of 1:25-cv-00128 Jul 15, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

A coalition of states sued the Trump administration for the President Trump's Executive Order which requires 7 agencies, including the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, to reduce their functions to the absolute minimum required by law.

Overview

The government appealed Judge McConnell's preliminary injunction which requires that the Trump administration reverse the steps taken to dismantle the multiple executive agencies.

Overview

The government appealed Judge McConnell's order granting summary judgement for a coalition of states which enjoins the federal government from making any further actions related to the dismantling of IMLS, MBDA, FMCS, and USICH.

Issue

Whether the President has constitutional and statutory authority to unilaterally direct federal agencies to reduce their functions to the absolute minimum required by law.

Rule

Presidential authority is limited by applicable statutes; the Administrative Procedure Act requires compliance with procedural safeguards such as notice-and-comment rulemaking for agency actions; and courts review executive orders for legal compliance and procedural adequacy.

Analysis

The coalition of states challenged the executive order as exceeding the President's statutory authority over the specified agencies and as violating APA procedures by mandating function reductions without required administrative processes.

Conclusion

The court decided the case on April 4, 2025, determining whether the executive order satisfied constitutional and statutory limits on presidential power to direct agency operations.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

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