How to track AG Neronha's legal battles against Trump? There's a web page for that.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha speaks at an April 1, 2025, press conference in Providence about the multistate lawsuit challenging the federal government's termination of $11 billion in public health funding. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current)
Donald Trump has been president for 119 days as of Monday. That comes out to a lawsuit in which Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha is a lead plaintiff or participant roughly every six days since the new Trump administration began.
In fact, Neronha has joined so many multistate challenges to the federal government that his office's website now features a page titled 'Federal Action Response' to track his 19 litigious efforts against the commander in chief.
The page includes detailed information on every lawsuit Neronha has led or joined, from a birthright citizenship case filed in New Jersey District Court the day after Trump took office, to the latest pair of victories last week.
Both of last week's wins happened on Neronha's home turf, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Overall, seven of the 19 lawsuits Neronha has joined against the Trump administration have managed to temporarily block executive orders, federal funding cuts, or agency regulations issued by Trump's cabinet members.
'Since day one, the Trump Administration has taken actions that extend far beyond the President's constitutional authority,' the landing page reads. 'These actions are impacting the rights of Rhode Islanders in real time. But we're ready.'
On Friday, May 16, District Judge Mary McElroy granted a request for a temporary court order and ordered the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reinstate federal funding while the case is pending. Rhode Island is one of 24 plaintiffs challenging the agency's abrupt termination of $11 billion in pandemic-era public health grants.
On Tuesday, May 13, Chief Judge John McConnell's preliminary injunction against a Trump executive order targeting library programming and other federal initiatives went into effect. McConnell issued the injunction on May 6, backing the 21 states that rallied against the executive order that led to the Institute of Museum and Library Services placing 85% of its staff on administrative leave.
'Americans have quickly grown weary of their government attacking them instead of working for them,' Neronha said in a May 14 statement after the injunction became effective.
Neronha joined 21 other attorneys general in the library funding lawsuit, which sought to block an executive order that led to staff reductions and grant cancellations at the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which helps mediate labor disputes.
'Above all else, as attorneys general, we have an obligation to protect the residents of our states from harm even when, perhaps especially when, it comes from the federal government,' Neronha's statement continued. 'With this order and many others, we are stopping this President in his tracks, and we will continue to fight every single step of the way.'
The executive order also designated the United States Agency for Global Media, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund as targets for spending cuts (although these agencies were not part of the state attorneys' efforts). The EO mandated these federal initiatives 'reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function' — in other words, abolish any programming not explicitly required by law.
But McConnell wrote in his May 6 ruling that this executive maneuver 'has effectively usurped Congress's lawmaking and spending authority — without constitutional or statutory authority permitting them [the federal government] to do so.
McElroy's ruling came in a lawsuit first filed in April, and deemed that HHS had violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and congressional spending authority.
'The power that HHS has asserted here is a broad one: terminating $11 billion worth of funding based on its determination that the money is no longer necessary,' McElroy wrote in her ruling. 'The Court cannot see how it can claim that power based on the history of congressional action described above.'
The pair of rulings reflect the overall legal strategy of Neronha and his blue state counterparts during the second Trump era: to hastily respond to the executive branch's equally speedy policymaking. Across the 19 lawsuits, states have argued that the Trump administration has repeatedly violated the Administrative Procedure Act, ignored congressional powers, and imposed wide-ranging but often unclear policy and budgeting directives on shaky legal ground.
'A hacksaw approach to government reduction will never yield positive results for the American people, and we will continue to fight, and win, in court to minimize the harm the Trump Administration is causing the people of this country,' Neronha wrote in a statement after the May 16 ruling. 'When the Trump Administration attempts to dismantle these agencies, it is making a targeted, concerted effort to prohibit everyday people from accessing their full potential.'
Six of the 19 cases in which Neronha has participated have been filed U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, including the two most recent filings from May 13: Illinois v. FEMA, and California v. Department of Transportation, both of which challenge challenges immigration enforcement as a prerequisite for federal funding.
Neronha has been especially busy in April and May, getting involved in 12 of the 19 cases during those two months.
A full list of the 19 cases, with court documents included, is available on the AG's website.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poland Presidential Exit Polls Show Conservative Historian in Lead
With the vote still too close to call, a projection indicates the Trump-backed candidate is winning.
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Rand Paul Thinks There Are Enough GOP Senators to Block Trump Budget Bill
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said Sunday that he's confident there are enough members of his party to vote against President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" spending bill amid concerns that it does not make enough cuts to spending. Newsweek reached out to the White House and Paul's office by email outside of normal business hours on Sunday for comment. Why It Matters Trump made the passage of a new spending bill one of his centerpiece policy goals for his second administration, aiming to wrap everything up into one single bill, the much-touted "big, beautiful bill" that will allow him to pursue his raft of policies. The bill would extend the president's 2017 tax cats, reduce taxes for individuals and corporations, and add new exemptions for tipped workers and overtime pay. Critics also warn that the bill's spending cuts would prove insufficient to pay for the proposed tax cuts and other spending priorities. However, some Republicans have voiced reservations about supporting the bill, with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating that it will add $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. The House of Representatives passed the bill by just one vote, 215-214, as two Republicans broke ranks and joined every House Democrat in opposing the bill. What To Know Paul has spoken out against the spending bill and said he will not vote to pass it due to the inclusion of a mechanism that would allow Congress to increase the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion. On Sunday, the senator appeared on CBS News' Face the Nation when host Margaret Brennan asked, "Do you have three other Republicans who will stand with you to block this bill?" Paul responded: "I think there are four of us at this point, and I would be very surprised if the bill at least is not modified in a good direction." He continued: "I want to vote for it. I'm for the tax cuts. I voted for the tax cuts before, I want the tax cuts to be permanent, but at the same time I don't want to raise the debt ceiling $5 trillion, so I've told them if you take the debt ceiling off the bill, in all likelihood I can vote for what the agreement is on the rest of the bill. And it doesn't have to be perfect to my liking, but if I vote for the $5 trillion debt, who's left in Washington that cares about the debt? The GOP will own the debt once they vote for this." The GOP senator said Trump's "big, beautiful bill" increases spending by about $320 billion for the military and for the border. "To put that perspective, that's more than all the [Department of Government Efficiency] DOGE cuts that we found so far, so the increase in spending put into this bill exceeds the DOGE cuts," he said Sunday. Paul then cited what he called inflated spending on the southern border wall, noting that the Trump administration managed to carry out its deportations without needing new spending or equipment and therefore deeming such expenditure in the bill is "asking for too much money." "In the end, the way you add it up to see if it actually is going to save money or add money is how much debt are they going to borrow—$5 trillion over two years is an enormous amount," he said. Brennan: Do you have three other Republicans who will stand with you to block this bill? Paul: I think there are four of us at this point — Acyn (@Acyn) June 1, 2025 What People Are Saying Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "The American people, like the Great People of Kentucky, do not support Biden spending levels and $5T in new debt. Therefore, I will not. It's simple." Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, wrote on X on Sunday: "The House Budget process focused on $1.5 trillion in reduced spending and ignored the looming debt crisis. I am preparing a report: FY2025 Budget Reconciliation, Facts & Figures. I hope to complete it shortly and hold a hearing on it before we take any more Senate votes on the budget." President Donald Trump on Truth Social last week: "THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL" has PASSED the House of Representatives! This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!" He added a message to Senate Republicans: "Now, it's time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! There is no time to waste." House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, in a statement on Thursday: "Today, the House has passed generational, nation-shaping legislation that reduces spending, permanently lowers taxes for families and job creators, secures the border, unleashes American energy dominance, restores peace through strength, and makes government work more efficiently and effectively for all Americans." What Happens Next? Other GOP senators, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri, have also raised concerns about the bill, and have voiced concerns ahead of a vote on the bill, which the Senate has set to happen before the Fourth of July.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
List of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions' removed from US government website following criticism
WASHINGTON — A widely anticipated list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' no longer appears on the Department of Homeland Security's website after receiving widespread criticism for including localities that have actively supported the Trump administration's hard-line immigration policies. The department last week published the list of the jurisdictions. It said each one would receive formal notification the government deemed them uncooperative with federal immigration enforcement and whether they're believed to be in violation of any federal criminal statutes. The list was published Thursday on the department's website but on Sunday there was a 'Page Not Found' error message in its place. What is a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' and how was the US list of them made?The list was part of the Trump administration's efforts to target communities, states and jurisdictions that it says aren't doing enough to help its immigration enforcement agenda and the promises the president made to deport more than 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal authorization. The list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly, a DHS senior official said. 'Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,' the official said in a statement. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that there had been anger from some officials about the list. However, she didn't address why it was removed. 'Some of the cities have pushed back,' Noem said. 'They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' The list, which was riddled with misspellings, received pushback from officials in communities spanning from urban to rural and blue to red who said the list doesn't appear to make sense. In California, the city of Huntington Beach made the list even though it had filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration sanctuary law and passed a resolution this year declaring the community a 'non-sanctuary city.' Jim Davel, administrator for Shawano County, Wisconsin, said the inclusion of his community must have been a clerical error. Davel voted for Trump as did 67% of Shawano County. Davel thinks the administration may have confused the county's vote in 2021 to become a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary County' that prohibits gun control measures with it being a safe haven for immigrants. He said the county has approved no immigration sanctuary policies.
