Story highlights:
- Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown joined lawsuits against the Trump Administration, challenging new Department of Energy rules.
- AG Brown argues the cap would force states to cut essential energy programs, reduce services, and potentially cancel projects
- A second lawsuit targets the Department of Justice, accusing the agency of threatening to withhold Victims of Crime Act grants unless states comply with federal immigration enforcement, funds Maryland relies on for victim services
Attorney General Anthony Brown is back in federal court, joining yet another pair of lawsuits against the Trump Administration.
Brown and his cohort of fellow Attorneys General from more than a dozen other Democratic led states are now suing the Department of Energy for imposing new funding caps for clean energy efficiency programs.
The case primarily centers on indirect costs, which cover administrative and staffing fees associated with state energy projects.
In this particular scenario, the Department of Energy is proposing a 10 percent cap.
Brown claims in 2024 that the federal government and Maryland Energy Administration agreed to an indirect cost rate of 40 percent.
"It could force states to make cuts to essential operations and programs, reducing their ability to deliver crucial energy services and potentially delaying or canceling key projects," Brown said in a press release. "State agencies would be forced to divert time and money from other ongoing projects, leaving fewer resources for helping consumers."
The allegations ring similar to ongoing litigation between universities such as Johns Hopkins, who recently challenged the administration on indirect costs about research projects.
It's no secret that President Donald Trump's energy stance is a far cry from Maryland's green agenda.
The White House has long vowed to dismantle such initiatives to cut down on federal spending.
Brown's second lawsuit targets the U.S. Department of Justice over threats to withhold Victims of Crime Act grants.
States accuse the feds of forcing them to choose between enforcing national immigration laws or assisting victims of violent crime.
"Defendants brazen attempt to manipulate critical funding for crime victims to strong-arm States into supporting the Administration’s immigration policies runs headlong into two basic principles of American governance: separation of powers and federalism," the lawsuit reads.
The federal grants in question cover things like victim and witness advocacy services, emergency shelter, sexual assault forensic exams, medical, funeral, and/or burial costs, and compensation for lost wages.
In Fiscal Year 2024 alone, Maryland received nearly $16 million in federal grants for victims of violent crime.
Back in May, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., appointed by former President Barack Obama, ordered the DOJ to restore more than $2 million in grants for American Bar Association programs that assist domestic violence victims.
It's the federal government's belief that cabinet secretaries have discretion as to how each executive branch agency disburses federal funding, in accordance with administrative policies.
When it comes to government grants and funding complaints, the Supreme Court has ruled the Court of Federal Claims, not District Courts, have exclusive jurisdiction.
That was also reflected in a recent Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion pertaining to foreign aid funds appropriated by Congress.
Right now, the Trump Administration has another appeal pending before the high court on funding-related matters.
In that filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer writes the following regarding terminated NIH funding.
"Claims for terminated grant funds are monetary, contractual disputes that they may take up later in the Court of Federal Claims without any cognizable irreparable harm. The government, by contrast, has an overriding interest in ensuring that discretionary funding decisions align with the President’s priorities."
Like many of Brown's lawsuits, these two were filed in Oregon and Rhode Island. Both districts have an overwhelming majority of Democratic appointed judges who are all but certain to rule in favor of the states.
