Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump
1:25-cv-02005
| N.D. Ill. | May 7, 2025Background
- Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT) sought modification of a preliminary injunction relating to the Termination Provision in Executive Order 14151, which directed termination of certain “equity-related” federal grants.
- The preliminary injunction previously issued protected only CWIT’s WANTO Act grant from termination, based on specific congressional appropriations language.
- CWIT receives five federal funding streams: WANTO grant, TBII grant, ABA grant, HUB grant, and an IIC, with the latter two administered through Jobs for the Future.
- CWIT argued the injunction should also protect its four other funding sources, claiming they are also congressionally mandated “equity-related” grants.
- The government argued, for the first time, that Dalton v. Specter precluded the court’s review based on separation of powers, as these were statutory claims, not constitutional ones.
- The court addressed waiver/forfeiture of this Dalton-based argument and substantively evaluated whether the congressional language for the other grants contained comparably binding mandates to the WANTO Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Injunction | All CWIT grants are congressionally mandated “equity-related” ones, so all should be protected. | Only WANTO grant has a clear congressional mandate; others are discretionary. | Injunction limited to WANTO grant, not others. |
| TBII grant (WIOA funds) | Congressional/statutory language shows mandate for equity funding via DOL Women's Bureau. | Appropriations language uses "may" (discretion), not "shall" (mandate). | No manifest error; not required grant under statute. |
| ABA grant (Appropriation Act) | Reference to “equity intermediaries” in statute is a required funding category. | “Including” signals permissive, not mandatory, recipients. | No congressionally mandated equity requirement. |
| JFF-related grants (HUB & IIC) | Legislative history shows congressional intent to remedy gender inequity requires funding. | Legislative history does not bind agency; no statutory mandate present. | No error; legislative history not sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (President’s actions in excess of statutory authority are not constitutional claims unless in absence of any statutory authority)
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (Appropriation statutes must have specific mandates to limit agency discretion)
- Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162 ("Shall" creates a mandatory requirement, "may" implies discretion)
- In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255 (President cannot decline to follow a statutory mandate based on policy objections)