Decision Shows Framework to Protect Safety Net Funding

A recent judicial decision may serve as an important guidepost for future litigants aiming to challenge agency action. On February 12, 2026, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) not to terminate more than $600 million in public health funding designated for four plaintiff states—California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota. 

The Trump Administration initiated the grant terminations pursuant to the recently enacted HHS Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations bill, Pub. L. 119-75. The statute requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to notify Congress at least three business days before terminating any grant, cooperative agreement, or contract award. In accordance with that requirement, the Administration notified Congress on February 9, 2026.

This “three-day rule” or “three-day clock” could restore some degree of Congressional oversight after the Administration cancelled thousands of grants mid-stream in 2025 for “no longer effectuating agency priorities” without notifying Congress.  Until now, it remained unclear whether this “three-day rule” would serve as a mere formality with “no substantive effect.”

In their complaint, the four plaintiff states alleged they have been targeted with these funding cuts based on “political animus,” including disagreement with the Administration’s policies on unrelated matters, such as immigration enforcement.

In issuing the TRO, which will last for 14 days—until February 26—and an accompanying Order, the court held that the federal government cannot terminate these grants “based on undisclosed agency priorities.” See State of Illinois et al. v. Russell Vought, et al., case number 1:26-cv-01566.

The court’s decision illustrates a pathway for states to protect safety-net program funding from arbitrary agency action through routine administrative and judicial remedies. Time will tell if non-governmental grantees, such as institutions of higher education, research institutions, Head Start agencies, community health organizations, or other nonprofits can succeed as these four states just did in blocking grant terminations through a similar litigation strategy.

Feldesman’s experienced federal grants attorneys and litigation team will continue monitoring developments as this case evolves. If you have any questions, please contact Phillip A. Escoriaza, Mindy B. Pava, or Edward T. Waters.