Court Halts HHS Funding Cuts, but Public Health Fight Continues

In a significant victory for public health, a coalition of major municipalities and public service workers represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) secured an injunction against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on June 18, 2025. The injunction halts the unlawful termination of federal funding that these municipalities and their public health workforce rely on to protect constituents from infectious diseases and pandemics. The ruling, however, did not extend nationwide relief, leaving many communities vulnerable to the potential loss of critical public health services.

The municipalities involved in the lawsuit—Harris County, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; and Kansas City, Missouri—filed their case in April 2025 in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The case, Harris County et al. v. Kennedy, challenges the HHS's decision to terminate more than $11 billion in federal grants, which were congressionally mandated to support vital public health work.

The injunction requires HHS to issue the grants while the case proceeds, ensuring that these municipalities can continue their essential public health efforts. However, the court's decision to decline a nationwide injunction means that only the specific municipalities and public sector union involved in the lawsuit will benefit from the injunction. This limited relief could lead to disparities in public health services across the country, with some areas receiving adequate funding while others struggle to maintain essential services.

Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee hailed the ruling as a win for public health departments across the country. "The federal government cannot simply ignore Congress and pull the plug on essential services that communities rely on," Menefee said. "Today's decision ensures we can keep doing the work that protects our residents—from tracking disease outbreaks to providing vaccinations and supporting vulnerable families."

Metro Nashville's Director of Law, Wally Dietz, echoed Menefee's sentiments, emphasizing the importance of the injunction in upholding the Constitution. "When the executive branch claims virtually unlimited powers, we all rely on the courts to uphold the Constitution," Dietz said. "Nashville cannot easily replace the five individuals laid off when the cancellation of the grant was initially announced, but we are grateful to the partners that pushed for this injunction and skillfully articulated why no administration has the authority to rescind grants previously authorized by Congress."

AFSCME President Lee Saunders expressed disappointment with the limited relief but vowed to continue the fight. "Every tax dollar withheld means fewer staff responding to outbreaks, fewer vaccinations, and greater risk to the public—especially those most vulnerable," Saunders said. "But this fight isn’t over. We will continue to push our case forward to ensure public dollars remain invested in public health."

The terminated appropriations provided more than $11 billion worth of federal grants to local municipalities for vital public health work, including identifying, monitoring, and addressing infectious diseases; ensuring access to necessary immunizations; and strengthening emergency preparedness to avoid future pandemics. The loss of these funds would mean fewer staff responding to outbreaks, fewer vaccinations, and greater risk to the public, especially those most vulnerable.

Joel McElvain, Senior Legal Advisor at Democracy Forward, highlighted the urgency of the situation. "The Trump-Vance administration’s destructive agenda threatens to deprive residents of essential public health services in the midst of continuing dangers posed by COVID-19 and other diseases, including a deadly measles outbreak centered in Texas that has spread to Ohio, Tennessee, and other states across the country," McElvain said. "The stakes here are real and immediate, and this injunction reflects that urgency."

Jill Habig, founder and chief executive officer of Public Rights Project, emphasized the broader implications of the ruling. "This case is about stopping federal abuse of power that puts lives at risk," Habig said. "Local governments rely on this funding to track disease, maintain vaccinations and staff essential health programs. This ruling ensures communities nationwide—not just the ones that sued—can continue to count on these vital services."

The legal precedent set by this injunction significantly influences future challenges to executive branch decisions regarding the allocation and termination of congressionally-mandated funding. The injunction underscores the principle that the executive branch cannot unilaterally terminate congressionally-mandated funding. It also highlights the importance of maintaining public health programs funded by Congress and sets a precedent for future litigation by demonstrating that courts are willing to intervene when the executive branch oversteps its authority.

The injunction requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue the grants while the case proceeds, ensuring transparency and accountability in the allocation of funds. Although the court declined to issue a nationwide injunction, it left open the possibility of extending needed relief later in the case to public health employees across the country. This precedent suggests that future challenges could result in broader relief, protecting public health programs nationwide.

In summary, the injunction is a crucial step in protecting public health infrastructure and ensuring that local governments can continue to respond to future health crises. However, the limited relief highlights the ongoing need for vigilance and advocacy to safeguard essential public health services. The fight to preserve these vital programs continues, and the legal precedent set by this injunction will influence future challenges to executive branch decisions regarding the allocation and termination of congressionally-mandated funding.