Capitol News

A federal court has ruled in favor of Michigan and 20 other states in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s attempt to tie federal emergency funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement.

The District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted summary judgment to the coalition, which included Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The court found that the agencies violated both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by conditioning federal funds on state participation in enforcing federal immigration law.

“This ruling makes clear that no administration can hold appropriated federal funds hostage to advance a political agenda,” said Nessel. “Michigan residents deserve to know the public safety resources their tax dollars support will be there to protect them when disasters strike. I remain committed to ensuring our communities have access to the resources they need when it matters most.”

Earlier this year, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem directed her agency and FEMA to halt funding for jurisdictions not assisting with federal immigration enforcement. In March, DHS changed its terms for all grant recipients, requiring them to certify their assistance with these efforts or risk losing substantial funding used for public safety.

The court determined that DHS’s process was arbitrary and lacked sufficient reasoning. The judge wrote that the new conditions were “vague and confusing...making compliance a nearly impossible-to-achieve moving target.” States were left uncertain about what actions would satisfy requirements under threat of losing critical funding.

Additionally, the court held that imposing these conditions violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause. It rejected DHS’s argument that such measures were justified because many grants address terrorism prevention. The court concluded DHS failed to provide a factual basis for its policy change.

Nessel and her counterparts argued that these requirements exceeded DHS’s legal authority and conflicted with congressional intent behind disaster preparedness programs. The district court agreed, stating it was unlawful to impose immigration-related conditions on all FEMA and DHS programs regardless of their original purpose.

In 2024, Michigan received over $60 million from DHS grants and nearly $257 million from FEMA related to specific disasters.

Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington State and Wisconsin also joined in the lawsuit.