N.J. joins other states suing feds for tying federal funding to immigration enforcement
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin joined 19 other state attorneys general in saying money for road repairs and flood protections should not hinge upon states' cooperation with federal immigration policies. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor)
There's no reason why money for road repairs and flood protections should hinge upon states' cooperation with federal immigration policies, contend 20 Democratic states attorneys general.
That's why the AGs, including New Jersey's Matt Platkin, are asking a federal judge to stop federal agencies from a 'grant funding hostage scheme' that requires detaining undocumented immigrants who don't commit crimes in order to receive key federal grants and aid.
Two new federal lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island Tuesday against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) aim to protect and preserve billions of federal dollars already awarded to states for emergency preparedness, disaster relief and infrastructure projects.
Directives issued in April by DHS and DOT secretaries informed states that their federal funding required compliance with federal immigration policies. The AGs — representing Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont — allege this violated constitutional protections for separation of powers.
'By hanging a halt in this critical funding over States like a sword of Damocles, Defendants impose immense harm on States, forcing them to choose between readiness for disasters and emergencies, on the one hand, and their judgment about how best to investigate and prosecute crimes, on the other,' the lawsuit against DHS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Coast Guard, and their leaders, states.
'Defendants' grant funding hostage scheme violates two key principles that underlie the American system of checks and balances: agencies in the Executive Branch cannot act contrary to the authority conferred on them by Congress, and the federal government cannot use the spending power to coerce States into adopting its preferred policies. Defendants have ignored both principles, claiming undelegated power to place their own conditions on dozens of grant programs that Congress created and bulldozing through the Constitution's boundary between state and federal authority.'
The AGs say state and local public safety officials have more important work to do than cater to the whims of a new administration, which stand in contradiction to state-level directives like, for example, authorizing licenses for undocumented immigrants. Rhode Island lawmakers granted driving privileges for undocumented residents in 2022, with a July, 1 2023 effective date, joining 19 other states and D.C.
Federal protocols followed by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies could force state and local police to use state license laws as a way to find and detain undocumented immigrants.
'As a former U.S. Attorney and former federal prosecutor, I know how many ICE agents are in Rhode Island and it's under 10,' Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said during a virtual press conference Tuesday. 'What they need in order to carry out their agenda is for us to do the work for them, pulling us away from important law enforcement work in Rhode Island.'
No state has seen federal funding cut off since directives were issued by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Not yet.
States' abilities to respond to natural disasters and security threats, and complete key infrastructure projects, including the much-anticipated rebuild of the westbound Washington Bridge in Rhode Island, hinge upon a continued flow of congressionally authorized federal grants and aid.
The $221 million Biden-era infrastructure grant awarded to Rhode Island for the Washington Bridge project only became accessible in late March, after weeks of uncertainty in the wake of the administration change. Gov. Dan McKee's office and the Rhode Island Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to inquiries for comment Tuesday regarding continued access to the funds in the wake of Duffy's April 24 directive tying federal infrastructure grants to compliance with federal diversity and immigration policies.
The Duffy directive fails to provide any statutory or legal explanation for why transportation funding relates to immigration enforcement. The new requirements jeopardize more than $628 million in federal funding in Rhode Island, and billions of dollars more across the country, the AGs argue in their lawsuit against Duffy and DOT.
'If Plaintiff States reject Defendants' unlawful Immigration Enforcement Condition, they will collectively lose billions in federal funding that is essential to sustain critical public safety and transportation programs, including highway development, airport safety projects, protections against train collisions, and programs to prevent injuries and deaths from traffic accidents. The loss of this funding will cause state and local providers to scale back or even terminate many of these programs and projects,' the complaint states. 'More cars, planes, and trains will crash, and more people will die as a result, if Defendants cut off federal funding to Plaintiff States.'
More cars, planes, and trains will crash, and more people will die as a result, if Defendants cut off federal funding to Plaintiff States.
– Twenty state Democratic AGs in lawsuit against U.S. Department of Transportation and Secretary Sean Duffy
Similarly dire predictions accompany the loss of security and disaster funds, which includes $3 billion in FEMA money to states each year, according to the lawsuit against DHS. Rhode Island received more than $45 million in FEMA grants in 2024 alone, according to the lawsuit.
The new complaints reprise language of the 20 state AG lawsuits against the Trump administration that preceded them, calling the executive agencies' actions 'arbitrary and capricious' and in clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and spending clauses.
Neronha during the press conference pointed to the success that AGs have had in other lawsuits, temporarily preserving funding and policy protections for education, immigration, research funding, public health, and grants and aid to state governments, among others.
Not that he expects the frenzy of legal activity will abate anytime soon.
'As we stack wins against the Trump administration for violation of the Constitution and other federal laws, what we are seeing is a creeping authoritarianism in this country,' Neronha said. 'The president is trying to take power for himself. He's trying to sideline Congress, and now, he's attempting to undermine the judiciary.'
Neronha likened the latest federal directives attempting to force states to redirect their own law enforcement to serve federal civil immigration policies to 'holding a gun to states' heads.'
Rhode Island, home to four of the 20 federal lawsuits against the Trump administration already, was again picked as the setting for the latest complaints due to the 'strong team' within Neronha's office, he said.
Neronha and other AGs bringing the two cases against the administration also stressed the sum of their collaborative parts.
'We've built the best and biggest law firm in the country, and we're fighting for all Americans,' Neronha said.
The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.
The lawsuit against DOT was assigned to U.S. District Chief Judge John Jr. McConnell Jr., while the case against DHS was assigned to Senior District Judge William E. Smith, according to the public court docket.
Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Newsom blasts deployment of National Guard to LA as ‘purposefully inflammatory'
LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday denounced President Donald Trump's plan to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to quell pro-immigrant demonstrators in the Los Angeles area, calling the action 'purposefully inflammatory.' The Democrat's remarks came after Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, told Fox News that the administration planned to send National Guard troops to the area. In a statement, Newsom said Trump was moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers, which the governor said would 'only escalate tensions' after protestors confronted immigration agents making raids on local businesses. Trump's move came without Newsom's signature, presumably by invoking Title 10, the legal basis for activating and mobilizing the Guard. In a social media post, Trump said, 'If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!' The standoff in Paramount, a small city in southeast Los Angeles County, marks the second consecutive day of clashes in the region over high-profile immigration raids. At least 44 people were arrested on Friday on suspicion of immigration violations. Among those arrested was the president of the labor union SEIU California, David Huerta, whose injuries during his detainment required brief hospitalization and set off a wave of condemnation from California Democratic officials, including Newsom. A video of Huerta's arrest showed officers knocking the labor union leader to the ground. In Paramount, federal agents in riot gears squared off against protestors, using tear gas and flash-bang grenades to disperse the crowds. Homan told Fox News that while people had a First Amendment right to protest, there would be consequences for 'crossing the line' and impeding ICE's operations. 'We're already ahead of the game. We're already mobilizing. We're going to bring in the National Guard tonight,' he said. 'We're going to continue doing our job. We're going to push back on these people and we're going to enforce the law.' Newsom, in his statement, said such federal intervention was unnecessary. 'LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need,' Newsom said. 'The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.'


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Elon Musk body-checked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ‘like a rugby player' during fiery clash at White House: report
Elon Musk aggressively body-checked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in the White House after being called a fraud – igniting a fiery clash that sparked the billionaire's messy falling-out with President Trump, a new report claims. The heated scuffle broke out in mid-April after both men pitched rival plans for the Internal Revenue Service to Trump in the Oval Office, with the president ultimately backing Bessent's choice, the Washington Post quoted former White House official Steven Bannon as saying. The pair left the meeting hurling insults at each other within earshot of the president's office, Bannon told the outlet. Advertisement 3 Elon Musk reportedly hurled his body into Scott Bessent's rib cage during a heated scuffle in the White House. Getty Images 'Scott said, 'You're a fraud. You're a total fraud,'' Bannon said, referencing the-then Department of Government Efficiency honcho's attempt to slash $1 trillion in federal spending. The verbal spat turned allegedly physical when the world's richest man rammed his shoulder into Bessent's rib cage 'like a rugby player,' prompting the treasury chief to fight back, the paper said Bannon claimed. Advertisement Bannon told the outlet it took multiple people to break up the playground tussle, before the SpaceX and Tesla founder was quickly removed from the West Wing. 'President Trump heard about it and said, 'This is too much,'' said Bannon, who has long been critical of Musk and his involvement in Trump's campaign and presidency. 3 The fiery clash started when Bessent called Musk a 'fraud.' Francis Chung/UPI/Shutterstock The latest details on Musk's dramatic White House exit emerged just days after the X owner went on a multi-day social media rampage against the commander in chief over his support of the 'big, beautiful' bill making its way through Congress. Advertisement Their breakup has unfolded in real time on social media and escalated after Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Thursday that he was 'disappointed' in the ex-DOGE chief, noting, 'I've helped Elon a lot.' 3 The latest details on Musk's dramatic White House exit emerged just days after the X owner went on a multi-day social media spiral against Trump. FRANCIS CHUNG/POOL/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Musk proceeded to lash out against the president, accusing the Trump administration of withholding documents related to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein because the president would be mentioned in them. Trump charged that Musk has gone 'crazy' and threatened to cancel the 'Billions and Billions' of dollars in contracts and subsidies the entrepreneur receives from the federal government. Advertisement Bannon also demanded a federal investigation into Musk's immigration status, pressing that he should be deported 'immediately.' Musk, who hails from South Africa, is an American citizen, according to reports. The White House and Treasury Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Reps for Musk couldn't immediately be reached for comment.


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
San Antonio mayor live election results: Gina Ortiz Jones leads
Gina Ortiz Jones is leading the race to be San Antonio's new mayor, edging out Rolando Pablos in early election results posted Saturday. Why it matters: The mayoral election, the city's first in 16 years without an incumbent on the ballot, has evolved into an unusually partisan race for a nonpartisan seat, drawing money and influence from across the state and nation. Neither Ortiz Jones nor Pablos have held elected office before, and San Antonio has not elected a mayor who hasn't served on the City Council since Phil Hardberger in 2005. The latest: Early vote results as of 7pm Saturday showed Ortiz Jones with 52% of the vote, with 48% for Pablos. State of play: Ortiz Jones served as an Air Force undersecretary in the Biden administration and was twice the Democratic nominee for the 23rd Congressional District. Pablos is a former Texas secretary of state who has served as a senior adviser to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. During the runoff campaign, both leaned on their families' immigrant backgrounds. Ortiz Jones spoke of being raised by a single mother who immigrated from the Philippines and Pablos of his family moving from Mexico to El Paso when he was 8 years old. Follow the money: Pablos and his supporters appeared to both outraise and outspend Ortiz Jones in the runoff election, campaign finance reports show. Pablos raised nearly $333,000 and spent more than $275,000 from late April through May 28. He got a big boost from the Texas Economic Fund, a political action committee run by Abbott's former political director, which raised $1.35 million and spent over $623,000 during that time. Ortiz Jones raised nearly $249,000 and spent over $133,000 in the same period. She had help from Fields of Change, a national Democratic PAC, which spent more than $160,000 for her campaign. The big picture: The new mayor will lead San Antonio at a pivotal time, as officials seek to gain public support for a new downtown Spurs arena that could be surrounded by a sports and entertainment district. They will also lead the city through the remaining years of the Trump administration, under which San Antonio has lost millions of dollars in federal funding. The city is also expecting a budget deficit. Catch up quick: Mayor Ron Nirenberg reached his term limits after eight years in office, making him the city's longest-serving mayor since Henry Cisneros in the 1980s. San Antonio's next mayor will serve for four years after voters approved increasing term length from two years. They will work alongside several new City Council members. Flashback: Nirenberg's departure left a rare opening that drew a crowded 27-candidate field to replace him. Four sitting City Council members struggled to break through the noise as traditional backers in local elections, like the police union, sat out the first round of voting.