Since President Donald Trump began his second term, Metro Nashville has filed seven lawsuits against the federal government over funding losses.
The cases, which are jointly filed with other localities and supported by the Public Rights Project, allege that the Trump administration has acted unconstitutionally by canceling or redefining the terms around dollars that had already been appropriated by Congress.
The seven challenges can be categorized into two types: There are four lawsuits challenging federal grants that were eliminated outright — this includes dollars that were supposed to go toward transportation projects, health department programs and homelessness initiatives.
The other three cases take issue with the federal government attaching new conditions to grants that had already been appropriated. That’s the case in Metro’s most recent lawsuit, which challenges FEMA’s new eligibility requirements over previously approved anti-terrorism grants.
Metro Law Director Tyler Yarbro described the actions of the White House as “aggressive and broad.”
“Our constitution is clear: Congress appropriates money. They have spending power,” Yarbro said. “The executive branch administers those funds as they’ve been appropriated. And it’s incumbent upon the cities across the country that are the beneficiaries of those funds … to hold our federal government accountable.”
Thus far, the cases have seen some success — Metro has been able to recoup more than $50 million, with more on the way (Nashville’s Metro Council is set to consider a portion of a previously suspended grant this coming week). Preliminary injunctions have been widely granted, allowing for some dollars to come through, as well as pausing some of the new conditions attached to the grants. But preliminary injunctions aren’t definitive — many of the cases are still waiting for final rulings.
Here are where the seven cases stand:
Sustainability Institute v. Trump, et al.
What the case is: In March of 2025, Nashville filed its first lawsuit against the federal government over canceled transportation funding. The Nashville Department of Transportation had been set to receive two grants — totaling roughly $14 million — for electric vehicle charging stations and bike lanes. Along with five other cities and 11 nonprofits, Metro sued.
Where it stands: It’s complicated. Plaintiffs were initially awarded a preliminary injunction, but that was vacated by an appeals court. Metro has, informally, stayed litigation of this case to negotiate with federal authorities over one of the grants, and to wait on the outcome of a different case that could impact the EV charging stations grant.
Some of the case’s plaintiffs did move for summary judgement — in other words, they asked for a final decision without holding a full trial — and the court vacated the federal guidance that looked to terminate the grants. However, that ruling has been paused pending an appeal by the federal government.
A portion of the bike lane dollars are making their way back to Metro. The total grant amount was $9.4 million. This coming week, the Metro Council will be asked to approve acceptance of $640,000 from the grant.
Harris County, TX v. Robert F. Kennedy, et. Al
What the case is: The next lawsuit Nashville signed onto focused on three grants terminated by the Department of Health and Human Services. At the start of 2025, HHS eliminated $11 billion of health funding without warning.
In April of 2025, Nashville joined two cities, one county and a government workers union to challenge the cuts. Nationwide, the cuts had caused sudden layoffs and program cuts. In Nashville, measles vaccine clinics, homelessness services, and the county’s public health lab’s processing were impacted.
Where it stands: Plaintiffs were granted a preliminary injunction, which returned nearly $6 million to the Metro Health Department. The case is currently on pause pending the outcome of a different case, which could impact the HHS grants.
King County v. Turner, et al.
What the case is: Roughly a week after filing suit over the health department grants, Metro signed onto a large case as one of approximately 75 plaintiffs. This case is the first lawsuit challenging revised terms associated with a grant.
In King County v. Turner, et al., cities and counties challenged new criteria attached to roughly $14 billion in federal housing, transportation and health grants. The requirements asked local governments to restrict diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, assist with federal immigration enforcement and comply with directives around “gender ideology” and abortion access.
Where it stands: The court granted preliminary injunctions, which blocked the application of the new conditions on dollars that had already been approved by Congress. That preliminary injunction was affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court late last month, and Metro expects the case to go back to the trial court for a ruling on the merits.
Through the preliminary injunctions, Metro as been able to continue receiving roughly $53 million from the departments of Health and Human Services, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.
Chicago v. Noem (now, Mullin)
What the case is: In late 2025, nine local governments filed suit over changed terms of grants from the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The grants support fire department staffing, port and transit security, counterterrorism preparedness and hazard mitigation projects. The new terms required localities to abandon DEI initiatives and comply with all executive orders related to grant funding.
Nashville was one of five new plaintiffs to sign onto the lawsuit in early 2026.
Where it stands: The district court entered a preliminary injunction that has resulted in the release of some funds. Nashville is expecting to see roughly $1.5 million in the coming weeks.
National Association to End Homelessness v. HUD
What the case is: In December 2025, Nashville challenged a policy change that reallocated Continuum of Care funding away from permanent supportive housing. The new federal policy also introduced new requirements, like requiring people to address substance abuse issues before accessing housing. It also asked for grantees to comply with conditions that localities have taken issue with in other suits: abandoning DEI initiatives, rejecting “gender ideology” and helping enforce immigration law.
Nashville, which filed suit along with a group of cities plus housing and homelessness nonprofits, said the change would have affected various local organizations that support nearly 1,000 residents.
Where it stands: The district court granted summary judgement in the plaintiffs’ favor, allowing Metro to receive approximately $11 million for the fiscal year 2025. However, there is another lawsuit over many of the same policies, which the federal government was looking to implement for the following fiscal year.
National Association to End Homelessness v. HUD (2026)
What the case is: This summer, Nashville filed suit in a case very similar to the original HUD legal challenge. The difference is that this case pertains to the following fiscal year’s Continuum of Care grant program, which HUD is again looking to alter. These changes include restricting housing to people who meet specific conditions (sobriety or participation in treatment, and employment) and the elimination of harm reduction programs.
Where it stands: Last month, the court vacated the “Notice of Funding Opportunity” — in which the federal government outlined the new policy — on the basis that HUD had failed to go through the required notice and comment period. The ruling has been appealed by the Trump administration to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nashville v. DHS
What the case is: Nashville’s latest lawsuit challenges new conditions imposed on anti-terrorism grants. In June, FEMA introduced new eligibility requirements that said 20% of Homeland Security Grant Program grants would be withheld if localities don’t implement certain election security measures. These measures include mandated changes to electronic voting systems, a 5% manual audit of paper ballots and implementation of the controversial system known as the “Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements,” or SAVE.
Metro is joined by the city of Columbus, Ohio, as a plaintiff, along with four Texas counties.
Where it stands: The lawsuit was filed last month. On Sept. 1, plaintiffs filed an urgent motion for partial summary judgment because the case could impact the upcoming November midterms. Yarbro said summary judgements are not typically requested so quickly after filing, but plaintiffs are looking for a ruling ahead of the election.
On Air - 90.3 WPLN-FM