In a recent turn of events, Denver has scored a win in the courtroom against the federal government. The U.S. District Court sided with the city on June 2 in a case involving threats from the Trump administration to cut off transportation funding. The dispute stemmed from a memo sent out by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, which hinted at a crackdown on cities not aligning with the administration's policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as immigration law enforcement. This ruling marks a significant moment for Denver, which had been grappling with the potential fallout from withheld federal monies.
Mayor Mike Johnston of Denver did not mince words following the court's decision: "Denver follows all laws - federal, state, and local - and it should not be so much to ask the White House to do the same," as reported by City and County of Denver. The court found that the threats of funding withdrawal likely overstepped the bounds of the executive branch, stepping on the toes of Congress, which has the power of the purse. The judge's ruling stated, "the Trump Administration has failed to provide reasonable explanations for the new funding conditions." This acknowledgement of overreach suggests that the White House might have to rethink its approach to enforcing conformity across cities.
According to the details of the case, the crux of the legal victory for Denver was the court's interpretation of the Separation of Powers. This principle is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, delineating the responsibilities and limitations of each branch of government. The court opined that by trying to impose new conditions on allocated funds, the administration was essentially taking over a role designated to Congress.
Another key aspect of the ruling was the recognition of the harm that just the threat of losing funds could cause. The court stated, "It is this looming risk itself that is the injury, and one that Plaintiffs are already suffering," as per the City and County of Denver. This speaks to the financial instability and uncertainty that local governments face when federal support becomes unpredictable. The harm, as the judges saw it, wasn't hypothetical; it was immediate and it was real.
