778 F.Supp.3d 200
D. Me.2025Background
- On April 2, 2025 USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins sent Maine’s governor a letter saying USDA was "freezing Maine’s federal funds for certain administrative and technological functions in schools" based on an asserted Title IX violation related to transgender student athletes.
- The freeze immediately rendered multiple Child Nutrition Program (CNP) accounts inaccessible (CACFP administrative and cash-in-lieu, state administrative funds, NTIG, equipment and Farm to School grants), impairing program administration and staff necessary to process reimbursements.
- Maine sued under the Administrative Procedure Act on April 7, 2025 and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO), arguing USDA acted "without observance of procedure required by law" (20 U.S.C. § 1682 and 7 C.F.R. Pt. 15a) and that the freeze would cause irreparable harm (hungry children, program collapse).
- USDA opposed, chiefly arguing lack of district-court jurisdiction (invoking the Tucker Act/Department of Education v. California line of authority) and that Maine had not shown irreparable harm or that the balance of equities favored a TRO.
- The court held that (1) judicial review under the APA is available here (20 U.S.C. § 1683 and Bowen reasoning), (2) USDA did not follow the statutory/regulatory procedural steps (notice, hearing/finding, congressional report/wait period, program-limited relief) before freezing funds, (3) Maine demonstrated likely irreparable harm and that equities/public interest favor relief; the TRO ordered immediate unfreezing and barred future freezes without following required procedures; bond set at $1,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of judicial review under the APA | Maine: §1683 and the APA waive sovereign immunity for equitable review of agency actions; district court may enjoin unlawful freezes. | USDA: Tucker Act/Department of Education precedent may require Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction for grant-payment disputes. | Court: APA §702/§704 and §1683 permit district-court review here; Bowen supports equitable relief even if money may follow. |
| Whether USDA complied with Title IX enforcement procedures (20 U.S.C. §1682 and 7 C.F.R. Pt.15a) | Maine: Rollins froze funds without required notice, hearing and express finding, congressional report and wait period; relief targeted programs unrelated to alleged noncompliance. | USDA: (did not dispute applicability) focused on jurisdiction and other defenses. | Court: USDA acted "without observance of procedure required by law"—the freeze violated statutory and regulatory steps and improperly targeted nutrition programs. |
| Irreparable harm | Maine: freeze impairs CNP administration, payroll and cash-to-purchase food—risk that children and vulnerable adults will go unfed; state cannot lawfully or immediately replace funds. | USDA: most frozen funds are administrative/technology (not food); Maine has fiscal resources/surplus and could cover shortfall. | Court: Maine showed likely irreparable harm—loss of program staffing and infrastructure threatens delivery of meals and cannot be fully remedied by money damages. |
| Balance of equities and public interest | Maine: public interest in feeding children and in agencies following law; USDA suffers no cognizable harm because it can follow required procedures to pursue enforcement. | USDA: harm if funds once disbursed cannot be recovered; government interest in enforcing Title IX. | Court: equities and public interest favor TRO—preventing unlawful agency action and avoiding immediate harm to beneficiaries outweighs government interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary-injunction framework requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (district court may provide equitable relief under the APA even where relief will likely result in government payments)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency action)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (statutory enforcement scheme indicates what remedies/conduits Congress intended)
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 591 U.S. 1 (2020) (presumption of judicial review for agency action)
- Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (discussing APA as a check on agency overreach)
- City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018) (absent congressional authorization, Administration may not withhold or reallocate funds to effectuate policy goals)
- Sindicato Puertorriqueño de Trabajadores v. Fortuño, 699 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (likelihood of success is the most important preliminary-injunction factor)