A federal judge has delivered a legal rebuke to the Trump administration by blocking the federal government’s attempt to reduce or withhold homeland security funding from states that refuse to comply with its immigration enforcement policies. The ruling, which restores more than $230 million in counterterrorism grants to affected states, raises fresh questions about the legal limits of tying federal emergency and security aid to immigration cooperation.
Judge Halts Funding Reductions Linked to Immigration Policy
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy of Rhode Island on Monday blocked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from cutting federal homeland security and disaster grants to states that declined to assist with certain federal immigration enforcement actions.
The funds at issue, more than $230 million out of a roughly $1 billion homeland security grant program, had been slated for Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., with cuts justified by the administration as leverage to encourage cooperation with federal immigration priorities.
In a detailed 48-page opinion, Judge McElroy described the decision to withhold the grants as arbitrary, capricious, and an improper use of federal grant authority. She wrote that tying essential public safety funding to immigration enforcement cooperation “raises grave concerns about the use of federal resources,” noting that the grants support critical counterterrorism, law enforcement, and emergency response programs.
Political and Legal Divide Over Grant Conditions
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 12 state attorneys general representing Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., who argued that the funding cuts were effectively punitive and endangered public safety. New York Attorney General Letitia James called the ruling a “significant legal victory” that ensures that “law enforcement and local leaders throughout New York depend on these funds to keep New Yorkers safe.”
In her ruling, McElroy cited both administrative law principles and practical concerns, pointing out that federal homeland security grants are typically allocated based on risk assessments and need, not political or policy alignment with the federal government’s immigration agenda. She also referenced recent violent incidents, including a mass shooting in Rhode Island, as examples of how deeply these funds are integrated into state and local public safety infrastructure.
The administration had framed its adjustments to grant conditions as part of a broader strategy to ensure that states are aligned with federal immigration goals, particularly around cooperation with federal immigration arrests and deportation operations.
Administration Signals Appeal, Continued Legal Fight
The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have indicated they plan to appeal McElroy’s ruling, underscoring that the dispute is likely to continue through the federal court system.
The case adds to a string of legal challenges concerning the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. In recent weeks, courts across the country have weighed in on related disputes, including limits on federal authority over state and local immigration cooperation and disputes over access to detention facilities and other enforcement processes.
Additionally, the debate over the scope of federal power versus state autonomy has broader implications for homeland security funding beyond immigration, touching on how grants tied to disaster preparedness, counterterrorism, and emergency response are administered nationwide.
Looking Ahead
With the administration poised to appeal the decision, a prolonged legal battle appears likely. How higher courts rule on the authority to condition federal grants on immigration cooperation could have major implications for both immigration policy and the distribution of billions in federal public safety funding. A reversal on appeal would grant broader executive discretion, while an affirmation of the ruling could curtail the use of grant conditions tied to immigration enforcement.
To learn more about recent U.S. immigration policy developments, visit ImmigrationQuestion.com, a meeting ground for individuals seeking clarity on U.S. immigration policy.
Get answers to your immigration questions from licensed immigration attorneys. For attorneys, use our innovative 3-1 case management to improve your practice. Download our free app on the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store.
Resources:
https://apnews.com/article/immigration-sanctuary-city-trump-fema-9c441d9cbe953a8ecd78123f0fe8a64e
https://www.axios.com/2025/12/24/trump-ice-dhs-fema-grants-states-sanctuary-city-ruling?utm_
ImmigrationQuestion.com is a networking platform founded by Immigration Attorneys. It serves as a meeting ground for licensed immigration attorneys and people with immigration questions. It is not a law firm. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by USCIS or AILA. Attorneys on this platform are independent and have the discretion to offer a free consultation and/or set their fees under the law.
