Federal judge rips Trump DOJ's 'shameful' slashing of violence prevention grants, 'laments' there's nothing he can do

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Law & Crime

Jul 8th, 2025, 11:39 am


A federal judge in Washington, D.C., was crystal clear on how he felt about the DOJ and its Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) "shameful" and "unfair" sweeping move to slash violence prevention and anti-human trafficking grants. But unfortunately for the groups who sued the Trump administration, the judge simultaneously acknowledged amid his lamentations that he was powerless to do anything about it.

A collection of safety-focused nonprofit grantees filed a class action suit against the DOJ and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in May, claiming that the OJP's April decision to "abruptly and summarily terminat[e] more than 370 multi-year cooperative agreements" and "$820 million in essential funding" ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Vera Institute of Justice, the Children and Youth Justice Center, Chinese for Affirmative Action (aka Stop AAPI Hate), FORCE Detroit, and Health Resources in Action argued that the "no notice" terminations with "no reasoned explanation" amounted to a "quintessential unlawful agency action" in violation of the APA, one they contended that U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta had the power to stop.

On Monday, Mehta disagreed in rather straightforward fashion that he had any role to play, even as he roundly criticized the administration's stated rationale for the cuts. The judge said that because the plaintiffs' APA claims against the government "are essentially contractual in nature" those claims "belong" in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, not the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/it-is-likely-to-harm-federal-judge-rips-trump-dojs-shameful-slashing-of-violence-prevention-grants-laments-theres-nothing-he-can-do/

---

Full headline: 'It is likely to harm': Federal judge rips Trump DOJ's 'shameful' slashing of violence prevention grants, 'laments' there's nothing he can do

Link to RULING (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280817/gov.uscourts.dcd.280817.47.0.pdf

Of note (from the excepts) -

APA claims against the government "are essentially contractual in nature" those claims "belong" in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, not the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

[pat_k]

1. Hope they have a strong case to take to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

I had no idea there were so many federal courts with specialized jurisdictions. First new one on me was the U.S. Court of International Trade. There are several others: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/05-courts-of-specialized-jurisdiction.html


From the AI summary it sounds like the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is the proper venue for a number of lawsuits against the shameful conduct we are seeing.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has a significant role in cases involving the cancellation or termination of multiyear government contracts.

Key aspects of multiyear contract cancellation under the purview of the Court of Federal Claims include:

Jurisdiction: The Court of Federal Claims handles various claims against the government, including contract disputes. It is frequently the appropriate court for contractors seeking damages after a multiyear government contract is canceled, particularly for claims over $10,000 under the Tucker Act.

Cancellation under specific clauses: Government contracts may contain clauses like FAR 52.217-2 that detail procedures and compensation for cancellation in later years due to lack of funding. If canceled under such a clause, the contractor can receive a cancellation charge, limited by a contract-specified ceiling, covering costs amortized over the contract period plus a reasonable profit.

Termination for Convenience: Any reduction in contract requirements not covered by the specific cancellation clause or termination for default is treated under the Termination for Convenience clause. This clause allows the government to cancel a contract when it's in the government's interest, even without contractor default. However, this right cannot be exercised in bad faith or as an abuse of discretion.

Damages for wrongful termination: If a termination for convenience is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith, it may be considered a breach of contract. In such instances, the contractor may recover allowable costs, reasonable profit on work completed, and potentially lost profits on the terminated portion.

Claim submission: Claims under the cancellation clause are submitted and computed similarly to claims under the Termination for Convenience clause. Claims should generally be filed within one year of the relevant notification or deadline, unless extensions are granted.

The Court of Federal Claims plays a significant role in resolving disputes concerning the cancellation and termination of multiyear government contracts, ensuring fair compensation for contractors based on contract terms and legal principles.