Cases & Developments

Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. A collection of nonprofit organizations challenged the July 14, 2025 Directive from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA), alleging the Directive violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is (1) procedurally deficient (2) contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority, and (3) arbitrary and capricious. The court granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction holding that they were likely to succeed on their claims, provided ample evidence of irreparable harm, and a balance of equities and the public interest weighed in their favor. In concluding that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims that the Directive is procedurally deficient, the court held that the Directive is a “legislative” rather than “interpretive” rule because it “creates legal obligations for Head Start agencies that did not exist for the last 30 years and alters the legal rights of Parent Plaintiff Members by removing their access to Head Start programs altogether.” The court granted plaintiffs’ request to immediately stay the Directive and, in order to prevent “piecemeal, confusing or incomplete relief,” enjoined defendants from enforcing or implementing the Directive against “any Head Start agencies, program providers, student or family participants, or other similar persons or entities.” 

Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs, a group of 22 states, sued the government seeking to enjoin the implementation and enforcement of four agency Notices on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), arguing these Notices violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Spending Clause. The court granted plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and satisfy the remaining prongs for obtaining an injunction. The court determined that because the Notices were a legislative, rather than an interpretative, rule and had not been subject to notice and comment, plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the Notices are procedurally deficient under the APA. The court also found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that the Notices are arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and violate the Spending Clause by impermissibly imposing retroactive conditions on funding. The court enjoined defendants from enforcing or implementing the four Notices with respect to any plaintiff States who are parties to the lawsuit pending further court order.