Case: City of Salem v. Mullin
6:26-cv-01340 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Filed Date: June 30, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenges the government’s alleged unlawful conditions on federal disaster relief funding.
On June 30, 2026, the City of Salem, Oregon, filed this lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The city challenged conditions attached to Congressionally appropriated disaster relief funding that was made available through the FY25 and FY26 DHS Standard Terms and Conditions and a FY 2024/2025 notice of funding opportunity. Disaster relief funding has been largely administered through DHS and FEMA. The complaint alleged that DHS and FEMA had imposed conditions on grants requiring recipients to certify they did not operate programs advancing diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI) or the “promotion” of “gender ideology,” and required compliance with all executive orders. The City maintained that these conditions placed more than $1 million in already-awarded disaster relief required for funding repairs to critical facilities damaged in a federally-declared disaster, as well as upcoming funding opportunities for disaster-management projects. The City alleged that the imposition of the challenged conditions violated the Spending Clause and separation of powers because DHS and FEMA acted without Constitutional or statutory authority, and the conditions were ambiguous and lacked justification. The City further alleged that the conditions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because DHS and FEMA acted arbitrarily and capriciously, contrary to the Constitution, and in excess of statutory authority. The City sought a declaration that the conditions were unlawful, preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining DHS and FEMA from imposing or enforcing the conditions and retaliating against the City, and attorneys’ fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Michael J. McShane.
On July 15, 2026, the City moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the defendants from imposing, enforcing, or implementing the challenged conditions or retaliating for filing this suit while the case proceeded. The City argued that it was likely to succeed on its claims because the defendants violated the separation of powers, as Congress did not authorize them to impose conditions unrelated to the grant program’s purpose. Further, the City contended that the Spending Clause requires grant conditions to be unambiguous (requiring fair notice) and relate to the grant program’s subject matter. Here, the City maintained that the challenged conditions did not provide clear standards of conduct and were therefore ambiguous, and did not relate to disaster response or preparedness, the goal of the grant program. Additionally, the City argued that the conditions were unlawful because they violated constitutional and statutory protections, did not derive from Congressionally delegated authority, and the defendants failed to explain why they imposed the conditions. The City explained that without a preliminary injunction, it would be forced to choose between accepting the unlawful grant conditions or losing funding, on top of already delayed projects, vulnerability to future disasters, and disruption to long-term planning and budgeting. Oral argument on this motion was set for August 18, 2026.
On July 29, 2026, the government filed a motion in response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the claims are contractual and belong in the Court of Federal Claims, that Salem lacks standing because it has received no award with the challenged conditions, and that the conditions reflect DHS/FEMA’s statutory and regulatory duties to ensure grant compliance. It also argues that Salem’s economic harm is not irreparable and that the equities favor the government.
On August 20, 2026, Judge McShane issued an opinion and order granting the preliminary injunction. The court held that it has jurisdiction because Salem has standing and its claims are statutory and constitutional rather than contractual. It found Salem likely to succeed on its separation of powers, Spending Clause, and APA claims, reasoning that DHS identified no congressional authority for conditions that go beyond existing anti-discrimination law, that the conditions are vague and unrelated to the purposes of the disaster-relief grants, and that DHS failed to adequately explain them. It also found irreparable harm and that the equities favor Salem. The court enjoined defendants from imposing or enforcing the challenged conditions, or materially similar ones, on Salem’s grants, from requiring related certifications, and from retaliating against Salem for bringing the suit.
After a joint motion for entry of a scheduling order and a joint status report, on October 5, 2026, the court stayed further proceedings in this matter until February 12, 2027. The court further directed the parties to file a joint status report by December 28, 2026, including an estimate of the remaining documents to be provided.
On October 13, 2026, the administration appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit which was docketed as No. 26-6746.
Summary Authors
Kara Wilczynski (8/7/2026)
Audrey Barnes (10/28/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73559829/parties/city-of-salem-v-mullin/
Crawshaw, Stacey H. (Oregon)
Cupani, Thomas V. (Oregon)
Attorney, Daniel Tenny, (Oregon)
Attorney, Cameron Marsh (Oregon)
Dolma, Tsechu (Oregon)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73559829/city-of-salem-v-mullin/
Last updated Nov. 14, 2026, 3:29 a.m.
Docket for: City of Salem v. Mullin
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
- Grant/Contract rescissions, Defunding or Other Threats against Private Entities
- Diversity/Equity/Inclusion/Accessibility (DEIA) and/or Antisemitism
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 30, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is the City of Salem, Oregon.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
District of Oregon 6:26-cv-01340
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 26-6746
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of City of Salem v. Mullin, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48334/ (last updated 10/28/2026).