The Daily Fuckup

The clearest legal fights against the Trump administration this spring have come from state attorneys general, and they have not stayed theoretical for long. California and Maryland both sued on February 18 over what they said was an unlawful move to terminate energy and infrastructure funding that had already been committed. Massachusetts filed a separate suit on March 11 over a federal demand for admissions-related data from colleges and universities. By April 24, those cases had already produced two different kinds of results: California officials said the administration backed away from the disputed energy-funding cuts, and a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the college-data demand.

California’s case centered on about $1.2 billion in energy and infrastructure programs. The state said the federal government was trying to cancel money that had already been promised, and Maryland’s lawsuit that same day made a parallel challenge to the broader effort. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the administration had backed away from the funding cuts. That announcement does not end the litigation, and it does not amount to a final ruling on the merits. But it does show that the state’s lawsuit was enough to force a change in the government’s position, at least for now.

The Massachusetts case moved on a different track. State officials sued to stop a federal demand that colleges and universities turn over information tied to admissions practices. On April 4, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a preliminary injunction blocking that demand as it applied to the plaintiff states’ public universities. The order was an early-stage ruling, not a final judgment. Even so, it was a quick judicial check on a demand that the state had already characterized as unlawful.

The broader pattern is less dramatic than a single courtroom showdown, but it is real: state officials are suing early, and the administration is either pulling back or getting slowed down in court. Those outcomes are not the same as permanent defeats. The California dispute could still keep going, and the Massachusetts order is only preliminary. But the practical effect is the same for now: the administration’s most aggressive moves in these cases have run into immediate resistance, and that resistance has already altered at least one of them.

There is also a political lesson in the timing. California and Maryland moved quickly on the funding dispute, and Massachusetts moved quickly on the data demand. That speed matters because it limits how long federal officials can act first and sort out the legal questions later. In both cases, the states did not wait for the policy to settle in; they met it in court. And at least in one case, the administration appears to have changed course before a judge could rule.

That leaves a narrower but sturdier fact pattern than a simple story about blue-state defiance. California says the energy-funding fight prompted a retreat. Massachusetts won an early injunction. Maryland’s case is still part of the same broader dispute. Together, they show a White House that can still move aggressively, but not always without immediate legal consequences.