Judge blocks $600 million in CDC cuts to four blue states

Federal judge halts health funding cuts

A federal judge in Chicago put the brakes on roughly $600 million in public health cuts.

U.S. District Judge Manish Shah issued a 14-day restraining order on Feb. 13, stopping the Trump administration from pulling CDC grants to California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota.

Shah wrote that the states showed the cuts would cause serious, lasting harm. The order keeps the money flowing while the lawsuit plays out.

Four states sued one day before

The states didn’t wait around. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul led the lawsuit on Feb. 12, joined by attorneys general from California, Colorado, and Minnesota.

They argued the administration targeted their states for opposing federal immigration enforcement. The timing was tight.

The first batch of grants could have disappeared the very next day if Shah hadn’t stepped in. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser confirmed the urgency behind the filing.

Judge sided with the states

Shah found the states were likely to win their legal challenge.

He ruled the administration’s reasons for cutting the grants appeared to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. He also found that federal officials had sent internal guidance to end the grants for unlawful reasons.

The balance of harms tipped toward the states, Shah wrote. That finding gave him enough to freeze the cuts while the case moves forward.

Grants fund disease tracking and staffing

These aren’t vague budget lines. The CDC grants pay for disease outbreak tracking, lead poisoning prevention, chronic disease surveys, public health staffing, data systems, and emergency planning across all four states.

Illinois alone stood to lose more than $100 million.

State officials warned the cuts would force the Illinois Department of Public Health to cut close to 100 workers. The programs touch everyday health services that millions of people count on.

Minnesota faced a $38 million loss

Minnesota stood to lose about $38 million from one grant alone, the Public Health Infrastructure Grant, or PHIG. The federal government awarded that grant in 2022, and it was supposed to run through 2027.

The Minnesota Department of Health said the cuts would directly hurt workforce development, data system upgrades, and emergency response planning.

Minnesota Health Commissioner Brooke Cunningham said there is no valid reason for singling out these states.

Administration says grants don’t match priorities

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it ended the grants because they don’t reflect current CDC priorities. The CDC updated those priorities in September 2025 to match the administration’s goals.

Congressional committees got a list of the canceled grants earlier that week, and each one carried the same label: “Inconsistent with Agency Priorities.”

Federal health officials did not respond to requests for comment on Shah’s order.

States call the cuts political payback

Officials in all four states say the cuts are payback for opposing federal immigration enforcement.

The same states have faced other federal funding cuts in recent months, hitting food assistance, child care subsidies, and electric vehicle programs.

The lawsuit argues the cuts violate the Constitution by putting new conditions on money Congress already approved. That legal argument could carry weight beyond this single case if the court agrees.

Trump signed the budget funding these grants

Here’s the wrinkle. President Trump signed the bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 into law on Feb. 3, just days before the administration moved to cancel the same grants.

According to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the law included funding for these programs. Congress even gave the PHIG program a $10 million boost with support from both chambers.

Every grant awarded since Trump took office had been approved by his own appointees.

Courts have blocked similar cuts before

This isn’t the first time a judge has stopped the administration from pulling funds.

In January, HHS froze about $10 billion in child care and family assistance grants in the same four states plus New York. A federal judge in New York blocked that freeze.

In September 2025, a group of attorneys general won the release of about $2 billion in disaster relief funding held up over sanctuary city policies.

Another judge freed up federal transportation money after a similar dispute.

Restraining order expires around Feb. 27

The 14-day order is set to expire around Feb. 27. After that, the court will decide whether to issue a longer preliminary injunction, which would keep the funding in place while the full case goes to trial.

The bigger legal question looming over everything: can the executive branch cut funding that Congress already voted to spend? For now, the money keeps flowing.

This article was created with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• Dr. Oz begs Americans to get measles shots — while defending RFK Jr.
• DC flags ‘March for Life’ rally as measles exposure site
• Trump’s plan to defund sanctuary cities has one big problem: the courts