Twenty-three states and DC have sued the Trump administration over public health funding rollbacks.
CNN —
Democratic attorneys general and governors in 23 states and Washington, DC, have filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Health and Human Services and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., alleging that the department’s sudden rollback of $12 billion in public health funding was unlawful and harmful.
In the lawsuit, filed Tuesday, the states are seeking a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to immediately halt the administration’s funding cuts that they say will lead to key public health services being discontinued and thousands of health-care workers losing their jobs.
Last week, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pulled back about $11.4 billion in funding allocated to state and community health departments during the Covid-19 pandemic response. The CDC expects to start recovering this money in about 30 days, according to HHS. An additional $1 billion from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration was terminated, according to the attorneys general.
HHS said Tuesday it does not comment on ongoing litigation.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago. HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trump’s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again,” the agency said in a statement last week.
The coalition of states argues that even though these eliminated funds were allocated during the Covid-19 pandemic, they were never intended only for Covid-19 response. Rather, much of the funding was allocated to support the public health system in the long term, as well as for pandemic preparedness and certain behavioral health services, including addiction treatment and suicide prevention.
“Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos, and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state stands to lose more than $400 million in public health funding, said in a news release.
The funds were building the framework for stronger health responses going forward, including for outbreaks of measles and H5N1 bird flu that are happening now, Dr. Joseph Kanter, CEO of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said when the cuts were announced last week.
“This funding was appropriated by Congress and obligated to health departments with work plans, budgets, and timelines approved by federal agencies,” Kanter said in a statement. His organization is not involved in the new lawsuit.
“With congressional and executive branch support, these funds were being used to modernize data systems, bolster laboratory capacity, improve electronic case reporting of time-sensitive infectious disease outbreaks, improve H5N1 and measles testing, and enhance biomedical terrorism preparedness, to name just a few examples,” he said. “We worry the abrupt loss of these activities will impair states and territories in their ability to respond to current and future threats.”
The new lawsuit claims that the administration is undermining the constitutional power of Congress since the funds were tied to specific congressional allocations. It argues that the administration does not have the legal authority to rescind funding that already had been allocated.
It’s the latest in a wave of litigation against the Trump administration. More than 100 lawsuits have been filed against the administration’s executive actions in the first months of Trump’s second presidency.
Although the latest lawsuit calls for a temporary restraining order as a first step, the coalition of attorneys general may work toward a permanent injunction on these public health funding cuts, said Daniel Karon, an attorney based in Cleveland who is not involved in the lawsuit but has been following cases against the administration.
“The concern is, of course, if the federal government loses, is the administration going to honor, respect and implement the court’s ruling?” asked Karon, who teaches consumer law at the University of Michigan Law School and The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
“When people talk about there being a constitutional crisis, this is what they’re talking about,” he said.
“When Congress says, ‘Spend on this,’ the legislative branch has spoken. But let’s say the executive branch replies, ‘We don’t feel like spending that way.’ Then the judicial branch gets involved and says, ‘We’re the final decisionmaker and have been for centuries, and Congress said to spend this way.’ Yet the executive branch says to the Supreme Court, ‘We don’t care what you think; we’re still not going spend that way,’ similar to the way the executive branch ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling in TikTok,” Karon said. “Now you have the three branches of government fighting with each other. There’s your constitutional crisis.”
