BALTIMORE — It didn't take long for Anthony Brown and his fellow Democratic State Attorneys General to file more lawsuits against the Trump Administration, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court said judges likely exceeded their authority in issuing universal injunctions.
The decision, however, left open whether states have standing to seek injunctions on behalf of their constituents, especially when pertaining to potential violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a routine go-to for Brown and company.
In his latest quest to slow Trump's agenda, Brown sued over the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sharing of personal medicaid information with ICE and other Homeland Security (DHS) officials.
Citing zero evidence other than news reports, Brown says "the federal government plans to create a sweeping database for mass deportations and other large-scale immigration enforcement purposes."
The government claims the data was provided to ensure only lawful residents receive medicaid benefits.
While undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for full Medicaid, Congress allows some exceptions, for emergency room visits and childbirth.
Trump's long been skeptical of waste, fraud, and abuse associated with medicaid, hence why his Big Beautiful Bill includes guardrails to help prevent such activity.
Here in Maryland approximately 1.5 million people, or one out of every four residents, are on Medicaid.
As of late, the program has not gone without hitches.
Back in April, a legislative audit found the Maryland Department of Health mishandled millions of dollars in questionable Medicaid claims.
Then last month the University of Maryland Medical System sued Maryland Physicians Care, one of the state's nine Medicaid Managed Organizations, for over $15 million in unpaid hospital bills.
Yet Brown says it's Trump's policies costing the state money.
"The Trump administration’s illegal actions are creating fear and confusion that will lead non-citizens and their family members to disenroll, or refuse to enroll, in emergency Medicaid for which they are otherwise eligible, leaving states and their safety net hospitals to foot the bill for federally mandated emergency healthcare services."
In Brown's opinion, Trump's latest move violates the Social Security and Administrative Procedure Acts (APA), while also running afoul of HIPAA and the Privacy Act.
The lawsuit itself was filed in California, one of several out-of-state districts Brown commonly files in due to its left-leaning judges who've proven likely to side with the states.
Either way, the case is all but certain to be appealed, presenting Brown with a tougher threshold to actually prove the harm he's alleging.
Like medicaid the IRS too maintains personal sensitive data, yet a federal judge in Washington D.C. allowed DHS and ICE access to the information to help enforce immigration laws.
One of Brown's sticking points is the Social Security Act, so it should be noted the Supreme Court in June granted DOGE access to sensitive non-anonymized Social Security data of millions of Americans, although the case was not specifically related to immigration.
Lawsuit number two was also filed in the Ninth Circuit, but in Washington State, which is all but guaranteed to result in, at minimum, a temporary restraining order.
This case goes against the U.S. Department of Education over funding cuts to mental health programs in K-12 schools.
Brown insists the funding freeze is illegal because Congress already appropriated the money.
Locally, he says the cuts would cause Bowie State University's Ujima Center for School Counseling to lose $2 million.
The University of Maryland at Baltimore could stand to lose millions as well for a fellowship that trains mental health professionals.
"Over the past two years, the program has already placed 67 fellows in approximately 50 schools where the need for mental health resources is acute," said Brown. "The Department abruptly canceled the University’s grant, without notice, representing nearly $2.5 million in anticipated funding, which will terminate the fellowship if not enjoined."
As the head keeper of the government's purse strings, Congress is charged with allocating federal funding, but it's the Executive Branch that's normally given deference on how the money is spent.
Plus, the correct legal forum for cases involving contracts and grants is the Court of Federal Claims, not a District Court lacking jurisdiction in such matters.
That argument was addressed in an April order from the U.S. Supreme Court overturning a lower judge's ruling requiring the government to pay out education-related grants.
A second lawsuit over frozen education funds originating in Maryland also was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in April.
According to Brown, no reason was given for the freeze other than the funds "conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities."
The lawsuits were filed the same day Brown celebrated a Rhode Island judge who ruled mass layoffs within HHS were unlawful.
Already, the Supreme Court has allowed reductions in force at several federal agencies. Now the high court is weighing a similar case on appeal.
More locally, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year overturned a Maryland judge's attempt to reinstate thousands of fired federal employees.
Maryland is currently home to approximately 229,000 federal workers, accounting for six percent of the state's overall employment and 10 percent of its overall wages, equating to $26.9 billion annually.
The state led by Brown has now joined 26 lawsuits against the Trump administration.
