Excerpt: “The arbitrary-and-capricious review at this stage of the litigation remains largely unchanged from the court’s earlier opinion. The touchstone of this inquiry is rationality, and Defendants’ actions flunk that test. Defendants still cannot provide a reasonable explanation for why they needed to freeze all federal financial assistance in less than a day to ‘safeguard valuable taxpayer resources.’ OMB Pause Memorandum, at 1. Evaluating funding priorities can be done without needing to starve citizens or deny critical health services. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 24-4 ¶ 6; 24-11 ¶¶ 6-7. The potential $3 trillion in financial assistance implicated by the freeze is a ‘breathtakingly large sum of money to suspend practically overnight.’ ECF No. 30, at 24. And ‘[r]ather than taking a measured approach to identify purportedly wasteful spending, Defendants cut the fuel supply to a vast, complicated, nationwide machine—seemingly without any consideration for the consequences of that decision.’ Id. Doing so was not—and could never be—rational, especially when the decision was made without grappling with its catastrophic effects or the logistical nightmare of its implementation.” (footnote omitted)
memorandum opinion
(39 pages)
Share