The Trump DOJ ABA grant retaliation lawsuit refers to the high-profile legal dispute between the American Bar Association (ABA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2025. The ABA sued the DOJ after losing vital federal grants for domestic violence and sexual assault legal training programs, alleging that the grants were withdrawn in direct retaliation for the ABA’s public criticism and constitutionally protected speech against the Trump administration’s policies.
Trump DOJ ABA Grant Retaliation Lawsuit: Court Rulings, First Amendment Claims, and Restoration of Funding
On April 10, 2025, the DOJ abruptly canceled $3.2 million in federal grants to the ABA—a day after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memo prohibiting DOJ attorneys from attending or engaging at ABA events, citing the ABA’s “support of activist causes” and ongoing litigation against the federal government. The ABA, represented by Democracy Forward, filed suit in federal court, arguing that cutting grants for the organization’s publicly voiced opposition violated First Amendment free speech protections and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Federal District Judge Christopher Cooper quickly issued a preliminary injunction, blocking DOJ’s attempt to terminate the grants. Judge Cooper found that the ABA was “likely to succeed on the merits,” and that its First Amendment injury was “concrete and ongoing,” emphasizing that the retaliation by DOJ for protected speech was not justified and constituted irreparable harm. The DOJ argued the court lacked jurisdiction, but Cooper disagreed, finding that the ABA’s claim pertained to retaliation, not just a contract dispute.
In July 2025, the district court administratively closed the case. The DOJ decided not to appeal, allowing the ABA to keep the $3.2 million in grants through 2027, restoring critical funding for legal services supporting domestic violence survivors. Either party may reopen the case if new retaliatory actions occur. The order was hailed by legal advocates for reinforcing the principle that government funding cannot be withdrawn in retaliation for protected speech.
The case has broader implications for legal and professional organizations targeted by government retaliation, emphasizing the role of courts in safeguarding speech and ensuring that funding decisions serve the public interest rather than political agendas.
Conclusion
The Trump DOJ ABA grant retaliation lawsuit sets a precedent for defending First Amendment rights against executive retaliation. The court’s ruling restored crucial ABA funding and affirmed constitutional protections for organizations expressing dissent against government policies. This legal victory underscores the necessity of fair process and the rule of law in federal grant administration.
