2026-06-06 00:26:16 UTC / 路透社
作者：大卫·托马斯
2026年6月6日 格林尼治标准时间凌晨0:26 更新于3小时前
- 法官批准了20名民主党州总检察长提出的禁令申请
- 各州辩称，美国农业部的相关条件威胁到740亿美元的营养与农业援助资金
- 原告方称美国农业部缺乏相关权限，违反了美国宪法
2026年6月5日（路透社）—— 一名法官于周五阻止了美国农业部以各州遵守特朗普政府的移民执法、跨性别群体及其他相关政策为条件，扣留数百亿美元联邦资金的行为。
美国地区法官明·乔恩批准了来自20个州和哥伦比亚特区的民主党州总检察长提出的初步禁令。乔恩由民主党总统乔·拜登任命至波士顿联邦法院，他表示将在后续发布一份备忘录解释其判决理由。
订阅《每日案卷》新闻简报，将最新法律资讯直接发送至您的收件箱，开启您的晨间阅读。点击此处注册。
广告 · 继续向下浏览
马萨诸塞州总检察长安德烈·乔伊·坎贝尔在其Bluesky社交媒体账号的帖子中对这一裁决表示庆祝，她写道：“这些拨款是生命线——我将始终为保护家庭的食品援助而战。”
美国司法部和美国农业部的发言人未立即回应置评请求。
周五的这一裁决是多起法院判决之一，这些判决均阻止了特朗普政府试图为拨款设置新条件，将资金与这位共和党总统的优先事项挂钩的行为。
由民主党领导的各州及首都特区声称，特朗普的新要求会危及国会已获批的、用于资助低收入家庭和扶持农民的资金。各州每年从美国农业部获得超过740亿美元的拨款。
广告 · 继续向下浏览
美国农业部在去年年底表示，各州必须证明其遵守联邦“政策”才能获得资金。州总检察长们指控美国农业部的要求过于模糊，将要求他们遵守特朗普行政命令中涉及“性别意识形态”、移民、跨性别运动员以及多样性、公平性和包容性的无关事项。
原告方称，美国农业部的相关条件可能会影响补充营养援助计划（即反贫困食品券计划）、学校午餐计划以及妇女、婴儿和儿童特别补充营养计划等营养项目。他们指控美国农业部无权施加这些新条件，称这些条件违反了美国宪法的拨款条款，且未经过必要的法律程序便开始生效。
blob:https://www.reuters.com/896f8eff-90b0-48a8-815f-85a39daa80ae
特朗普政府辩称，如果各州需要遵守联邦反歧视法律和法规才能获得资金，那么这一原则也应适用于其他“政策”。
本案为马萨诸塞州联邦等诉美国农业部案，美国马萨诸塞州区联邦法院，案号1:26-cv-11396。
代表各州的律师：马萨诸塞州总检察长办公室的尼塔·克兰德、伊利诺伊州总检察长办公室的维卡斯·迪德瓦尼亚以及加利福尼亚州司法部的布莱恩·比尔福德
代表美国农业部的律师：马萨诸塞州区联邦检察官办公室的迈克尔·菲茨杰拉德
大卫·托马斯 报道；塞尔吉奥·农和威廉·马拉德 编辑
我们的准则：汤森路透信托原则。
Judge blocks Trump administration’s attempt to link USDA funds to compliance with other policies
2026-06-06 00:26:16 UTC / Reuters
By David Thomas
June 6, 2026 12:26 AM UTC Updated 3 hours ago
United States Department of Agriculture logo and U.S. flag are seen in this illustration taken April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Judge grants injunction sought by 20 Democratic attorneys general
- States argued USDA conditions threatened $74 billion in nutrition and farm aid
- Plaintiffs claim USDA lacked authority and violated U.S. Constitution
June 5 (Reuters) – A judge on Friday blocked the U.S. Department of Agriculture from withholding tens of billions of dollars in federal funds from states unless they complied with the Trump administration’s policies on immigration enforcement, transgender people and other issues.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun granted the preliminary injunction sought by Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia. Joun, appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden to the federal court in Boston, said he would issue a memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell celebrated the ruling in a post on her Bluesky social media account, writing, “These grants are a lifeline — I’ll always fight to protect food assistance for families.”
Spokespersons for the Justice Department and USDA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Friday’s ruling is one of several court decisions that have blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to place new conditions on grants that would align funding with the Republican president’s priorities.
The Democratic-led states and the capital district alleged that Trump’s new requirements would jeopardize funding already approved by Congress to feed low-income families and support farmers. The states receive more than $74 billion annually from USDA.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
USDA at the end of last year said states must certify compliance with federal “policies” to receive funding. The attorneys general alleged that USDA’s requirement was too vague and would require them to comply with unrelated matters outlined in Trump executive orders concerning “gender ideology,” immigration, transgender athletes and diversity, equity and inclusion.
USDA’s conditions could affect nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the anti-poverty food stamp program, as well as the school lunch program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the plaintiffs said. They alleged the USDA lacked authority to impose the new conditions, which they say violate the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause and went into effect without going through required legal procedures.
blob:https://www.reuters.com/896f8eff-90b0-48a8-815f-85a39daa80ae
The Trump administration contends that if states are required to abide by federal antidiscrimination laws and regulations in order to receive funds, it should also apply to other “policies.”
The case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., vs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:26-cv-11396.
For the states: Nita Klunder of the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Vikas Didwania of the Office of the Illinois Attorney General and Brian Bilford of the California Department of Justice
For the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts
Reporting by David Thomas; Editing by Sergio Non and William Mallard
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复