A federal judge in Rhode Island on Tuesday accused the Trump administration of trying to “bully” states into accepting conditions that require them to cooperate on immigration enforcement actions in order to access disaster funding. The accusation follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge William Smith, appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush, who deemed such enforcement actions unconstitutional.
Despite his September ruling, a coalition of 20 state Democratic attorneys general accused the Department of Homeland Security of continuing to attach immigration conditional language to grant documents, suggesting these conditions would apply if the previous ruling were “stayed, vacated, or extinguished.”
Smith mandated that the Homeland Security Department must immediately stop enforcing these conditions against the plaintiff states and amend the relevant documents within seven days, erasing any references to compliance with federal immigration laws.
In his judgment, Smith criticized the agency's continued insistence on conditional terms, describing them as a “ham-handed attempt to bully the states into making promises they have no obligation to make,” which could jeopardize crucial disaster funding already appropriated by Congress.
The defendants were charged with making a non-genuine effort to comply with the court's order. Smith highlighted that the conditional nature of the requirements made little difference in the legal context.
The coalition of states stressed in their complaint that for decades they depended on federal funding to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. The Trump administration’s conditions jeopardized critical funding for crucial services, including earthquake and flood management and wildfire control.
The Department of Homeland Security was accused of attempting to “upend this emergency management system," effectively holding vital emergency preparedness funding captive unless states promised to allocate resources for federal immigration enforcement—a role some states argue extends beyond their authority.
Plaintiffs contended that this federal overreach not only contravenes constitutional standards but also violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates the methods by which federal entities create and implement policies.
Moreover, while the government argued that the challenge was moot due to its decision to exclude certain programs from compliance, it maintained that it is lawful to caution states about potential conditions as the ruling could be overturned on appeal. This ongoing conflict highlights the precarious balance between federal authority and state autonomy regarding immigration enforcement and disaster recovery funding.
