Kinda curious how the arguments will shake out that this isn't fundamentally different than attaching strings to federal highway money to states in exchange for enforcing speed limits, or likewise requirements tied to state education funding, etc. Team Trump is already trying to say the scope is limited like those existing practices, but the judge isn't having it.

The Supreme Court has ruled you can't slap conditions on federal grants without explicitly telling states about the conditions.

As I understand it, Trump tried to pull funding for already existing grants which isn't allowed. New grants would, presumably, be a different situation.