°µÍø½ûÇø

A spokesperson for the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said in a statement that she would continue fighting to make sure “communities can adequately prepare for natural disasters.�

Massachusetts and the other states that brought the lawsuit argued FEMA lacked the authority to end the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program and redirect more than $4 billion of its funding. The program aims to harden infrastructure around the country against potential storm damage.

FEMA initially announced it was ending the program, but later said in a court filing that it was evaluating it.

Noting money for the program was allocated by Congress, the states’ lawsuit says any attempt to redirect it would run afoul of the Constitution.

A lawyer for the government, Nicole O’Connor, argued at a hearing in July that the funds can be used both for disaster recovery and disaster prevention and that FEMA should have discretion to use the money how it sees fit.

In his ruling, Stearns said he was not convinced Congress had given FEMA any discretion to redirect the funds. The states had also shown that the “balance of hardship and public interest� was in their favor.

“There is an inherent public interest in ensuring that the government follows the law, and the potential hardship accruing to the States from the funds being repurposed is great,� Stearns wrote. “The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives.�

The program has provided grants for a range of disaster management projects, including strengthening electrical grids, constructing levees for flood protection and relocating vulnerable water treatment facilities. Many of the projects are .

FEMA said in a that it was “ending� the program, but the agency’s acting chief, David Richardson, later said in a court filing that FEMA was merely evaluating whether to end or revise it.

Stearns said it appeared FEMA had decided to end the program and was “inching towards a fait accompli,� noting it had cancelled new funding opportunities and told stakeholders they shouldn't expect any unobligated funding.

The states, including California, New York and Washington, argued that the threat of losing the funding alone had put numerous projects at risk of being cancelled, delayed or downsized. And they warned ending the program would be highly imprudent.

“By proactively fortifying our communities against disasters before they strike, rather than just responding afterward, we will reduce injuries, save lives, protect property, and, ultimately, save money that would otherwise be spent on post-disaster costs,� they wrote in the suit filed in July.

FEMA said in a court filing that an injunction on its use of the funds could hamper its ability to respond to major disasters.

But Stearns said the administration could come back to him to release funding should a disaster of “unprecedented proportions� occur.