A U.S. federal judge has temporarily barred the Trump administration from blocking billions of dollars in federal funding for child care and social welfare programs to five Democratic-led states, ruling that the states met the legal threshold for emergency relief while the case proceeds.
In a decision issued on Friday, January 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian ordered that federal funds continue flowing to California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York for at least 14 days, preserving the status quo as the court considers the legality of the funding pause.
The states had challenged a policy announced earlier in the week that sought to freeze funding for three federal grant programs, arguing that the move was already disrupting operations and creating what they described as “operational chaos.” They told the court that the federal government lacked a lawful basis for withholding funds allocated by Congress.
The funding at issue covers the Child Care and Development Fund, which subsidises child care for low-income families; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provides cash assistance and job training; and the Social Services Block Grant, which supports a range of social programmes. Collectively, the five states receive more than $10 billion annually from the three programmes.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it paused the funding because it had “reason to believe” the states were providing benefits to people in the country illegally. However, the agency did not publicly provide evidence to support the claim or explain why only those five states were targeted.
Judge Subramanian, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, did not rule on the underlying legality of the funding freeze. Instead, he found that the states satisfied the legal standard for temporary injunctive relief, allowing funds to continue while arguments are heard.
Court filings show the federal government requested extensive data from the states, including the names and Social Security numbers of benefit recipients dating back to 2022. The states argued that the request was unconstitutional and politically motivated, contending that it was aimed at Trump’s political opponents rather than preventing fraud.
During a telephone hearing, Jessica Ranucci, a lawyer with the New York Attorney General’s office, told the court that at least four of the states had already experienced delays in receiving funds. She warned that any interruption in child care subsidies would immediately affect providers and families who depend on them.
Counsel for the federal government, Kamika Shaw, said it was her understanding that funding had not been fully halted.
The ruling sets the stage for a broader legal battle over executive authority, congressional spending power and the limits of federal oversight, with potential implications for how future administrations manage social welfare funding across the United States.
