President Donald Trump attempted via a series of executive orders to temporarily freeze a substantial amount of federal spending to ensure it was not wasteful or misaligned with his policy agenda, only to be blocked from doing so by lawsuits from Democratic state attorneys general and court orders from Democrat-appointed judges.

On Thursday, a federal judge in Rhode Island replaced a previously issued temporary restraining order against the Trump administration's freeze on federal spending with a more permanent preliminary injunction, NPR reported.

The judge's order is unquestionably a win for the coalition of 22 Democrat-led states plus Washington D.C., but notably is only applicable to those plaintiffs and will undoubtedly be fully appealed by the Trump administration.

Judge issues preliminary injunction on spending freeze

In a 45-page order, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr., a 2011 appointee of former President Barack Obama, said, "The Executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government."

"The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate, and sophisticated balance -- but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the Executive put itself above Congress," he continued. "It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending."

"Federal agencies and departments can spend, award, or suspend money based only on the power Congress has given to them -- they have no other spending power," the judge wrote. "The Executive has not pointed to any constitutional or statutory authority that would allow them to impose this type of categorical freeze."

"The Court is not limiting the Executive’s discretion or micromanaging the administration of federal funds," he asserted. "Rather, consistent with the Constitution, statutes, and case law, the Court is simply holding that the Executive’s discretion to impose its own policy preferences on appropriated funds can be exercised only if it is authorized by the congressionally approved appropriations statutes."

The judge added, "Accordingly, based on these principles and the reasons stated below, the Court grants the States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction."

RI AG Neronha celebrates judge's ruling

The coalition of plaintiff states was led by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, who said in response to the court's ruling, "Immediately following President Trump’s Inauguration, he made his feelings about the Constitution known through a barrage of executive orders, many of which attempted to subvert the rule of law in favor of illegal executive power. We don’t have kings in this country, and today’s preliminary injunction reaffirms that."

After some additional anti-Trump commentary, the AG wrote, "There is a silver lining here: right now, the Judicial Branch stands strong. Judge McConnell decided to grant our request for a preliminary injunction, so that this case may be heard on its merits, because frankly, the law is on our side," and further noted, "In doing so, Americans should feel encouraged that the President cannot impose his will where he does not have the constitutional power to do so. And while he may continue to try, we will continue to fight."

"We have a long road ahead of us, to be sure. But today’s decision reminds us that the President cannot amend the Constitution with the stroke of a pen," Neronha added. "In fact, our founders designed it to protect against those who may try. We must come together and assert that in America, the power of the people will always trump the power of one man."

NY AG James also weighs in on ruling

Also commenting on Judge McConnell's order was New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also styled herself a leader of the coalition of plaintiff states and lamented the possible horrors that may arise if President Trump's temporary freeze on and review of certain federal spending was permitted to be implemented.

"I led a coalition of attorneys general in suing to stop this reckless policy and defend the essential funding that our communities count on. Today we secured another court order to block the administration’s funding freeze while our lawsuit progresses," the overtly anti-Trump AG stated. "The power of the purse belongs to Congress -- not the President. I will continue to fight to uphold our laws and protect the vital funding and programs that New Yorkers need."

The Trump administration does not appear to have commented on this admitted setback, but NPR noted that President Trump had previously vowed to fully appeal all court decisions that are detrimental to his policy agenda, which certainly includes this particular preliminary injunction.