Solutions In Hometown Connections v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00885

Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations that received federal grants from USCIS to provide citizenship assistance, English classes, and naturalization support to lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
In January 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, pursuant to Executive Order 14159 issued by President Trump, froze and later terminated these grants, citing concerns over legality, efficiency, and potential waste, fraud, or abuse.
Plaintiffs allege the freeze and termination are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and seek emergency injunctive relief to require payment of the remaining grant funds.
Plaintiffs filed for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and an APA stay; the grants for eight plaintiffs (the "FY 23 Plaintiffs") were funded under the 2023 Appropriations Act, while one (ILCM) was funded in FY 2024.
The government contended that the proper forum for the contract-based claims of the FY 23 Plaintiffs is the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, not the district court under the APA.
The Court held a hearing and ultimately denied injunctive relief to the FY 23 Plaintiffs, holding their claims are essentially contractual and thus beyond the court’s jurisdiction, but held the motion in abeyance as to ILCM (the FY 24 Plaintiff).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction under APA vs. Tucker Act	APA permits review; claims are regulatory/statutory	Claims are contractual; Tucker Act applies	Claims are contractual, under Tucker Act, Federal Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction
Likelihood of Success on Merits	Actions are arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful	Grants terminated per contract; actions legal	Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; jurisdiction lacking
Nature of Relief (Monetary vs. Injunctive)	Relief is primarily injunctive, seeks to restore operations	Relief is monetary, reimbursement for past costs	Relief mostly monetary, thus must proceed under contract law in Fed. Claims Ct
Adequacy of Alternative Remedy	District court necessary for full remedy, including legal costs	Federal Claims Court adequate for all claims	Plaintiffs have adequate remedy in Federal Claims Court

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (Proper standard for preliminary injunctions, detailed elements to be satisfied)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (Balance of equities/public interest merge when government is a party in injunctive relief)
Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (Not all monetary relief is 'money damages'—distinction between equitable and damages remedies)