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 following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found judges have likely exceeded their authority in issuing universal injunctions.
The decision, however, left open the question of whether states have standing to seek injunctions on behalf of their residents on potential Administrative Procedures Act (APA) violations, which has become a go-to for Brown and company.
In his latest quest to slow Trump's agenda, Brown is suing over a decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that would provide personal information of medicaid users to Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE 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 federal government reportedly claims the data was provided to ensure only lawful residents receive medicaid benefits.
While undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for full Medicaid, Congress has allowed for some exceptions, including for emergency room visits and childbirth.
Meanwhile, Trump has long been skeptical of the waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the medicaid program, hence why his Big Beautiful Bill includes guardrails helping to prevent such activity.
Here in Maryland approximately 1.5 million, or one out of every four state residents, is enrolled in Medicaid.
As of late, the program has not gone without its 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 that will cost 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 and his colleagues' opinion, Trump's latest move violates the Administrative Procedure and Social Security Acts, while also running afoul of HIPAA and the Privacy Act.
The lawsuit itself was filed in California, which is 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 guaranteed to be appealed, presenting Brown with a tougher threshold to actually prove the harm he alleges.
For example, in May, a federal judge in Washington D.C. allowed DHS and ICE access to IRS information so the administration could better enforce immigration laws.
Since the Social Security Act is one sticking point in Brown's lawsuit, 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.
Like lawsuit number one, 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 says freezing the fund is illegal since Congress already appropriated the money.
Locally, Brown says the cuts would cause Bowie State University's Ujima Center for School Counseling Scholars to lose $2 million.
Similarly, the University of Maryland at Baltimore runs 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 cancelled the University’s grant, without notice, representing nearly $2.5 million in anticipated funding, which will terminate the fellowship if not enjoined."
As the guardian of the government's purse strings, it's Congress that is charged with allocating federal funding, but it is the Executive Branch that normally is given deference on how the money is spent. Plus, the normal forum for funding cases is the Court of Federal Claims, not a District Court.
That argument was addressed in an April order from the U.S. Supreme Court overturning a lower judge's ruling that required the government to continue paying out education-related grants. A second lawsuit over frozen education funds that originated in Maryland was also 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 come as 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.
These lawsuits bring the total number that Maryland has joined against the Trump administration to 26.
