A federal update including an update on relevant court cases

King County v. Turner 25-cv-00814 (W.D. Wash.) The City of Cambridge is a plaintiff in this case. Plaintiffs sued Secretary of Transportation and HUD for imposing conditions on grants to local governments, including HUD Continuum of Care and DOT grants. The conditions include prohibitions on DEI, "gender ideology," "elective abortions," and aid to immigrants. The imposed conditions threaten over $4 billion dollars in federal funding.

Local governments argue that in imposing conditions on grants, the federal government violates the separation of powers, Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause (Vagueness), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Preliminary Injunction entered in favor of local governments on June 3, 2025. The Preliminary Injunction Order has allowed the City to enter into grant agreements with HUD for the Continuum of Care grant funds. Federal government appealed. Appeal pending.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs filed a second Motion for Preliminary Injunction asking the Court to order that the conditions do not apply to additional grants, such as CDBG grants. The Court issued an order granting the Preliminary Injunction on August 12, 2025, and the order applies to the City’s CDBG grants. San Francisco v. Trump 25-cv- 01350 (N.D. Cal.) The City of Cambridge is a plaintiff in this case.

Lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of President Trump’s initial Sanctuary Jurisdiction

Executive Order (EO). Plaintiffs argue the EO violates the Tenth Amendment, Separation of Powers, Spending Clause, and Due Process Clause. Preliminary Injunction entered in favor of local governments, ordering that the Federal Government cannot enforce the Sanctuary Jurisdiction EO. Federal Government Appealed. Appeal pending. Cambridge added as a plaintiff.

Plaintiffs filed a second Motion for Preliminary Injunction asking the Court to prevent the Federal Government from enforcing both Sanctuary Jurisdiction EOs against all of the Plaintiffs, including Cambridge. On August 22, 2025 the Court issued an order granting the Preliminary Injunction. Also the Federal Gov’t filed a Motion to Dismiss the case that the local governments will be opposing. California v.

United States

DOT 25-cv-00208 (D.R.I.) An order in this case applies to the City of Cambridge.

States challenge an April 24, 2025, letter issued by Secretary Duffy, requiring recipients of DOT grants to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The letter does not define what constitutes “cooperation.” States allege that the conditions are beyond DOT’s authority. Preliminary Injunction entered on June 19, 2025, which protects funding for the 20 states that brought the suit, including Massachusetts, and the local governments in those states, including Cambridge. Motions for summary judgment filed on August 19, 2025.

State of New

York v. U.S. Department of Justice 25-cv-00345 (D.R.I.) An order in this case applies to the City of Cambridge. States challenged the revocation of various exemptions under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). PRWORA is part of the federal welfare system and governs the eligibility of noncitizens for Federal, State, and local public benefits. Several federal agencies issued new requirements requiring recipients of federal funding to be checked for immigration status.

This has meant that many undocumented immigrants who previously had access to certain federal benefits under the agency exemptions are no longer exempted. This also means that states administering federal benefit programs are now required to implement verification schemes to verify the status of benefit recipients, even if the programs previously did not require verification.

On July 30, the federal defendants stipulated they would not enforce the challenged notices against the plaintiff states until September 11, 2025. The federal defendants also stipulated that they would not enforce the notices based on conduct occurring in the plaintiff States prior to September 11, 2025; funds expended in the plaintiff States prior to September 11, 2025; or any other actions taken in reliance on this Stipulation prior to September 11, 2025.

Since Massachusetts is a plaintiff, this applies to Cambridge. The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2 Newsom v. Trump 25-3727 (9th Circuit); 25-cv-04870 (N.D. CA) California seeks order prohibiting the Department of Defense from federalizing the CA National Guard and deploying it to conduct domestic law enforcement without meeting statutory requirements. U.S. District Court ruled that federal deployment of CA National Guard was illegal and violated the 10th amendment.

On June 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit stayed the lower court order pending appeal. After a three day bench trial, on September 2, 2025, the District Court ruled that the federal government violated the Posse Comitatus Act when it unlawfully deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles for immigration enforcement operations.

The District Court’s ruling will go into effect on September 12, 2025, and bar “deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any military troops heretofore deployed in California, to execute the laws, including but not limited to engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.” Commonwealth of MA v.

National Institutes of Health, et al, and other associated cases

25-1343 (1st Cir.); 25-cv-10338

MA argues that cap of 15% reimbursement for all new grants, regardless of the indirect cost needs of the institution, violates the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. District Court issued a final judgment enjoining federal government’s 15% cap on reimbursement for all new grants. Federal government appealed. Appeal pending. President and

Fellows of Harvard

College v. DHS, et al. 25-1627 (1st Cir.) 25-cv-11472 The City of Cambridge intends to file an amicus brief in this case. Harvard contests federal government’s revocation of Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students and otherwise prevent foreign students from enrolling at Harvard. U.S. District Court entered order enjoining federal government from “implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving any force or effect” to the federal government’s revocation of Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students.

Court likewise enjoined presidential proclamation barring foreign students destined for Harvard. Federal government appealed. Appeal pending regarding injunction. On August 6, 2025, the federal government stipulated that “the May 22 letter will not be used to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification or Exchange Visitor Program designation. Defendants are currently following the procedures under 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.3, 214.4 and 22 C.F.R. Part 62.” Harvard did not accept the stipulation.