A federal judge has determined that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it dismantled a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant program aimed at minimizing the impact of natural disasters.

The program in question, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), represents the most significant pre-disaster mitigation initiative offered by FEMA. According to U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, this program’s funding, designated by Congress, is intended to ensure FEMA remains committed to its primary mission of mitigation, as detailed in his 19-page ruling.

This case revolves around the balance of power between the government’s branches, and Judge Stearns emphasized that only the executive branch overstepped its authority. “In essence, this is not about judicial interference in the Executive Branch’s discretionary powers,” noted the judge, appointed by Bill Clinton. “It’s about the Executive’s unlawful intrusion into Congress’s authority to allocate funds for a pressing purpose, and nothing beyond that.”

In April, FEMA’s leadership announced the cessation of the BRIC program, prompting a legal challenge in July from twenty states. They argued that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, its overseeing body, had breached the Administrative Procedure Act—a fundamental law governing federal agencies—as well as several constitutional clauses.

Despite the court’s recent decision, FEMA has yet to officially terminate any awarded grants under this program.

As of Thursday”s order, no awarded grants had officially been terminated by FEMA.

While the Trump administration made the procedural argument that BRIC has not actually been terminated and thus the “States’ claims depend on a contingent future event,” Stearns found this argument unavailing.

“[T]he evidence in the record indicates that the decision to end the program has, for all practical purposes, been made,” he writes. “That FEMA has yet to formally terminate any already-awarded grants does not convince the court that the program’s future status remains up in the air.”

The federal government has also argued that the states “have not suffered any actual injury because they are not entitled” to the funding. However, once again, the judge batted down this line of thinking.

“[T]his is not literally true,” he writes, pointing to two pieces of legislation that “guarantee each State” a “threshold of mitigation funding each fiscal year.” Stearns goes on: “Thus, while FEMA has discretion whether to award funding for any single grant, it lacks discretion to refuse to award any funds to selected grants in a given fiscal year.”

The Trump administration appears to be planning on redirecting funds from the preventative BRIC program to reactive programs meant to deal with natural disasters after they’ve struck, according to the Boston-based jurist. Such an action is “unlawful.”

Stearns subsequently scolded the administration for its behavior, suggesting “bureaucratic obstruction” should not stand in the way of saving lives.

“The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives,” he writes. “It need not be gainsaid that the imminence of disasters is not deterred by bureaucratic obstruction.”

“Any potential hardship to the Government, in contrast, is minimal,” he goes on. “The States do not ask the court to compel the agency to award any specific grants, nor do they ask the court to enjoin the agency from replacing the BRIC program in the future with a different mitigation program. Nor do they seek to prevent the Secretary of Homeland Security, as the overseeing executive of FEMA, from recommending to Congress that the BRIC program be abolished. The States’ requested relief is to enjoin the cancellation of the BRIC program as it is currently constituted by an act of Congress.”

As a result of Stearns’ order, FEMA must take all steps to ensure BRIC is in place as Congress intended.

The Department of Homeland Security, though, still maintains that it did not terminate the program, stating in comments to Reuters that “any suggestion to the contrary is a lie.”