A coalition of 26 states and the District of Columbia has filed a sweeping lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., challenging the abrupt termination of $11 billion in public health funding that states say is critical to protecting residents and maintaining essential health services.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the suit accuses HHS of unlawfully canceling grants and cooperative agreements that were appropriated during the COVID-19 pandemic but were designed to support long-term public health infrastructure, mental health services, and emergency preparedness.
READ: Second Amendment Foundation Sues Colorado Over Gun, Ammo Excise Tax
The lawsuit, led by Colorado, Rhode Island, California, and other Democratic-led states, seeks immediate injunctive relief to stop the Biden administration from enforcing the funding cuts, which took effect March 24 without prior notice.
The complaint argues that HHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by terminating the grants “for cause” — a designation typically reserved for grantee misconduct or noncompliance — when no such violations were alleged.
The plaintiffs say HHS cited the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency as justification for the terminations, claiming the grants were no longer necessary. However, the states contend that the funds were intended to support long-term investments in public health that extend beyond the pandemic.
“Defendants issued mass terminations for billions of dollars in vital public health funding with no warning and effective immediately,” the suit states, calling the move “arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.”
READ: Kentucky Becomes Latest State To Ban DEI In Higher Education Following Veto Override
State health departments say the funding cuts will result in layoffs of hundreds of workers, halted disease surveillance systems, and the collapse of essential mental health and vaccination programs.
In Minnesota, more than 200 public health employees are expected to be laid off. California could lose access to over $800 million in funding already allocated for infectious disease tracking and community outreach. Nevada has already terminated 48 employees as a result of the cuts.
In Washington state, health officials warn that the termination of $118 million in funding jeopardizes their ability to track respiratory illnesses like measles and H5N1 avian flu. Rhode Island reported losing over $27 million for vaccine distribution and disease surveillance.
The termination notices were issued with no prior warning, according to the lawsuit. Many agencies only became aware of the cancellations when they discovered them in internal grant portals.
READ: House Passes DETERRENT Act To Crack Down On CCP Influence In U.S. Universities
The suit criticizes the notices for offering “boilerplate” explanations and no individualized assessment of how the funds were being used or what impact their loss would have. In many cases, the states say, the grants had already been approved for use through 2026 or 2027.
“The abrupt termination of these awards is directly and immediately impacting the work of multiple programs,” the complaint states. “Many of whom rely on these awards for their day-to-day operations and community health programs.”
In a March 25 statement, HHS defended the move, saying it was eliminating wasteful pandemic-era spending. “We will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars on programs responding to a non-existent pandemic,” an agency spokesperson said.
However, the lawsuit counters that Congress reviewed these pandemic-related appropriations in 2023 and deliberately chose not to rescind the funds in question, signaling their continued importance.
The plaintiff states are asking the court to:
- Vacate and nullify the grant terminations,
- Reinstate the funding immediately,
- Prevent HHS from reissuing similar terminations without proper legal authority,
- And declare the agency’s actions unlawful.
They also seek a temporary restraining order to halt the effects of the cuts while the case proceeds.
This high-profile legal battle could have far-reaching consequences for how federal agencies manage pandemic-era funding and how they interpret their powers under the APA. The case is expected to attract attention from both public health advocates and fiscal conservatives, setting the stage for a broader debate about federal oversight, state rights, and pandemic preparedness.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
