A federal judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from requiring 20 Democratic-led states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in exchange for billions of dollars in transportation grant funding.
Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Providence, Rhode Island, granted the states’ request for an injunction against the Department of Transportation’s policy, saying the states were likely to prevail on the merits of some or all of their claims.
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general, who claimed the administration was attempting to illegally hold federal funds hostage in order to coerce them into supporting Trump’s hardline immigration agenda.
The states argued that U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy lacked the authority to impose immigration enforcement conditions on funds appropriated by Congress to assist states in maintaining roads, highways, bridges, and other transportation projects.
Since taking office on January 20, Trump has issued several executive orders calling for the cessation of federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as his administration moves to conduct mass deportations.
Sanctuary jurisdictions typically have laws and policies that restrict or prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests.
The Justice Department has filed a series of lawsuits against jurisdictions such as Illinois, New York, and Colorado, alleging that Democratic-led states’ laws impede federal immigration enforcement.
The lawsuit was filed before McConnell, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, after Duffy informed states on April 24 that they would lose transportation funding if they did not cooperate with federal law enforcement, including ICE’s efforts to enforce immigration law.
The states argue that the policy is improper and amounts to an unconstitutionally ambiguous condition on the states’ ability to receive congressionally authorized funding because it does not specify what constitutes adequate cooperation.
The administration has argued that the policy was within Duffy’s discretion and that the conditions should be upheld because it is not improper to require states to comply with federal law.
The 20 states are separately pursuing a similar case in Rhode Island, challenging new immigration enforcement conditions imposed by the Homeland Security Department on grant programs.
