Maryland Joins More Legal Actions Against Trump, Including A Challenge To Billions In Grant Cuts

By Sam Gauntt, Maryland Matters

June 25, 2025

Maryland joined two more legal challenges to the Trump administration Tuesday, one to defend a specific minority business program and another to challenge a sweeping legal maneuver the White House has used to terminate billions in federal funding.

The legal actions, like many against the administration, were filed by Democratic attorneys general and governors from 20 or more states and the District of Columbia. They are the latest of about two dozen such suits that Maryland has joined since President Donald Trump took office.

The states filed a friend of the court brief in a federal case in Kentucky that Maryland Attorney General Brown called a “backdoor attempt to dismantle” the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program in federal contracting.

The lawsuit targets the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal departments and agencies for what it calls their unlawful use of “a single subclause buried in federal regulations” to cut “billions of dollars of federal funding” to the states.

That subclause says a congressionally approved grant can be canceled for a handful of reasons, including if the grant “no longer effectuates … agency priorities.” OMB originally interpreted that to apply when new evidence showed that a grant was ineffective or not feasible. It was not to “terminate grants arbitrarily.”

But that’s what OMB has done since Trump took office, says the suit that was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. OMB now claims that that five-word clause “permits agencies to terminate grant awards when the agency simply changes its mind.”

Electric shock: Maryland has not joined suit against Trump over EV sales rules

Under that interpretation of the regulation, Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency directed federal agencies, including all of those listed in the lawsuit, to cut billions in grants that were already awarded in what the lawsuit described as a “slash-and-burn campaign.”

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Brown’s office said that in Maryland these cuts have targeted funding for STEM research, food purchasing programs that support underserved communities and modernization of the state’s unemployment insurance systems.

The lawsuit is asking the court to rule that the OMB clause doesn’t “independently authorize the Trump administration to terminate funding based on agency priorities that were identified after the grant was awarded.”

Alternatively, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the Trump administration’s decision to terminate billions of dollars in federal funding “based on purported changes in agency priorities.”

“The Trump administration cannot unilaterally cut federal funding that Congress has already approved simply to serve its political agenda,” Brown said in a statement Tuesday. “We will not stand by while Maryland families lose access to healthy, affordable food or our universities are stripped of critical research funding.”

The challenge to the Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program stems from a lawsuit filed by two highway contractors in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. They argued that the program violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause by mandating a certain amount of funds be reserved for woman- or minority-owned businesses.

The program, founded in 1983, aims to ensure nondiscrimination in the awarding of contracts and has steered billions in federal transportation and infrastructure contracts to minority- and woman-owned businesses. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises include firms that are classified as a small business, majority owned by women, minorities or other socially and economically disadvantaged adults, and are run day-to-day by women or minorities.

The federal government, under former President Joe Biden, initially opposed the lawsuit. But after President Donald Trump returned to office in January, the government switched its position and now sides with the highway contractors, according to the brief. The administration asked the court to issue a consent order that “could restrict or eliminate” the program across the country, according to a statement on Tuesday from Brown’s office.

The brief argues that if the court were to grant the order requested by the federal government and the two highway contractors, it would be exceeding “the proper role of the court in our adversarial system of government, because the parties requesting the order take the same position on the issues.”

“This so-called settlement is a backdoor attempt to dismantle a program that helps underrepresented businesses compete for federally funded transportation projects,” Brown said in a separate statement Tuesday. “We’re fighting to protect fair access, strengthen our infrastructure, and ensure these investments benefit all of our communities.”