Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel released a statement on March 17 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld a lower court decision that blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold trillions of dollars in federal funding from states.
The case is significant because it concerns access to essential federal programs such as Medicaid and Head Start, which support millions of residents in Michigan and across the country. The ruling ensures continued funding for these services, which are vital for public welfare.
Nessel said, “Blocking these critical federal funds would have harmed millions of Michigan residents who rely on essential federal programs like Medicaid and Head Start. I am relieved that another court ruled this directive unconstitutional and recognized that it undermines the wellbeing and safety of the people across the country. I remain committed to defending the rights of Michiganders and the rule of law, including holding the federal government accountable for unprecedented and unlawful attacks on congressionally funded federal programs.”
In January 2025, Nessel joined a coalition of 22 other attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against a policy that would have withheld large amounts of essential funding from states, affecting many public services. In March 2025, she secured a preliminary injunction against this policy, which was affirmed by the First Circuit’s recent decision.
According to the official website, Nessel has served as Michigan’s 54th attorney general and leads efforts focused on public service and protection throughout Michigan. The Department advances social initiatives such as actions against human trafficking, support for vulnerable populations, and drafting policies like the Clean Slate law in 2019 to expand expungement opportunities according to its official website. The Department operates with statewide authority to safeguard residents according to its official website.
The broader impact of this ruling may influence how future administrations approach federally funded state programs. Observers will be watching how similar legal challenges unfold regarding state-federal relations over program funding.
