The US District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion for preliminary injunction in favor of the American Bar Association (ABA) on Wednesday, temporarily blocking the Trump administration from canceling a series of grants to the ABA that funded legal services to victims of domestic and sexual violence.

At the outset, Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed the Justice Department’s (DOJ) position that this court had no jurisdiction to hear this case because the relief ABA sought is reinstatement of the grants, which in the government’s view is a contractual claim that belongs in the court of federal claims. Cooper disagreed stating that the ABA’s claim is based on an allegation of retaliation, which is a First Amendment matter and “not” contractual. Thus, Cooper concluded that the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Having decided jurisdiction and reviewing the facts of the case, the court concluded that the 1) ABA is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, 2) will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 3) and that the balance of equities and public interest favor preliminary relief to the ABA — i.e. the three elements required to be shown for successfully obtaining a preliminary injunction.

The government claims that it had a nonretaliatory motive for terminating the grants: They no longer aligned with DOJ’s priorities. But the government has not identified any nonretaliatory DOJ priorities, much less explained why they were suddenly deemed inconsistent with the goals of the affected grants. And the government’s different treatment of other grantees suggests this justification is pretextual. DOJ did not terminate any other OVW grants, and, at oral argument, the government conceded that other grant recipients continue to conduct similar training functions with OVW money. The government has offered no nonretaliatory explanation for why it continues to fund these other OVW grantees after terminating the ABA’s grants, or why these other grantees’ projects still effectuate DOJ’s priorities while the ABA’s do not. Finally, DOJ also purported to terminate two grants that, by their terms, had already ended, making it even less plausible that DOJ conducted an individualized analysis of whether each grant aligned with DOJ policy.

As to irreparable harm, the court noted that the First Amendment injury is “concrete and ongoing:” that the ABA regularly engages in “protected expressive activity,” and the DOJ’s termination of grants directly punishes ABA’s expressive activity. Cooper concluded that “this case involves actual government retaliation for speech” with the potential to “threaten the very existence” of the ABA’s operations.

Finally as to the public interest and balance of equities factor, the court said that the DOJ neither identified any goals that can be better served by diverting funds away from ABA nor explained why the ABA is not already serving the DOJ’s goals. Cooper also reminded the government that the ABA “does not seek…[reinstatement] of the grants that had, by their terms, already ended or to renew the grants at the end of their terms.” Therefore, this factor weighs heavily in favor of the ABA.

This is one of three separate suits that the ABA has filed against the Trump administration. The ABA filed this specific suit late last month alleging retaliation on the part of the Trump administration for certain positions it took against the federal government. Aside from the cancellation of grants, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche also released a memo last month prohibiting DOJ employees from speaking at, attending, or “otherwise participating” in ABA events. Stating that these are “ extraordinary times ,” the ABA launched these suits decrying the persistent attacks on those who disagree with government actions and pledged its commitment to defend the rule of law and the judicial system.

The ABA is not the only one to be targeted by the Trump administration. Law firms , federally funded broadcasters , and educational institutions have all faced increasing pressure from the Trump administration for not toeing the line with the federal government’s new policies and vision.