20 state AGs sue feds for tying transportation and disaster funding to immigration enforcement
Federal funding for the Washington Bridge demolition and rebuild project faces new uncertainty under new executive directives tying infrastructure grants to states' cooperation with federal immigration policies. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current)
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 Rhode Island's Peter Neronha, 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,' 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.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Luigi Mangione Update: New Details From Alleged Manifesto Revealed
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Prosecutors released new excerpts from Luigi Mangione's spiral notebook, detailing the alleged killer's motive for targeting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. A Wednesday court filing described detailed planning and ideological motivations, including Mangione's stated desire to avoid civilian casualties. Mangione, 27, was arrested five days after Thompson was shot and killed outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel on December 4, 2024. Authorities have characterized the crime as premeditated and politically motivated, and the evidence is now at the center of upcoming court proceedings. Newsweek reached out to Mangione's legal team for comment. Why It Matters The killing of Thompson, CEO of the country's largest health insurer, has highlighted deep public frustration with the American health insurance system and ignited debate over the potential for violent acts as a form of protest. In the wake of the crime, health insurance employees expressed heightened fears for their safety. The case has drawn both public condemnation and some support for Mangione, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges in his federal and state cases. Luigi Mangione appears at a court hearing in New York on February 21, 2025. Luigi Mangione appears at a court hearing in New York on February 21, 2025. Steven Hirsch/New York Post via AP, Pool, File What To Know According to the court filing, Mangione's diary entries chronicled months of planning. He allegedly surveilled Thompson near the Midtown hotel the night before the killing. An August 15, 2024, entry read: "I finally feel confident about what I will do. The details are coming together. And I don't feel any doubt about whether it's right/justified. I'm glad in a way that I've procrastinated bc it allowed me to learn more about UHC." It said that after considering another target, he chose the health insurance industry. "The target is insurance. It checks every box," the August entry read. Mangione's red notebook, seized during his arrest in Altoona, Pennsylvania, contained statements allegedly explaining his rationale for targeting UnitedHealthcare and seeking maximum public impact. He reasoned that attacking the CEO at an annual investor event was "targeted, precise and doesn't risk innocents." A larger attack "would've been an unjustified catastrophe," particularly one he allegedly contemplated in Maryland, which he decided against due to the risk to innocent lives. He described an intent to "send a message" through the killing, emphasizing the choice of a symbolic target and the timing for maximum disruption. Alleged Motive and Wider Impact Prosecutors said Mangione singled out UnitedHealthcare as a surrogate for the broader health insurance industry, stating that the company "literally extracts human life force for money." Thompson's death produced tangible fear within UnitedHealthcare and across the health insurance sector, with threats being reported and employees being advised not to wear branded apparel. Court records and a federal complaint stated Mangione was not a current UnitedHealthcare customer and acted alone, motivated by animosity toward the industry's structure. What People Are Saying Assistant District Attorney Joel Seidemann, Manhattan District Attorney's Office, in a filing: "If ever there were an open and shut case pointing to defendant's guilt, this case is that case. Simply put, one would be hard-pressed to find a case with such overwhelming evidence of guilt as to the identity of the murderer and premeditated nature of the assassination." Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Mangione's defense attorney, in an April 1 statement: "This is a corrupt web of government dysfunction and one-upmanship. Luigi is caught in a high-stakes game of tug-of-war between state and federal prosecutors, except the trophy is a young man's life." What Happens Next Mangione is scheduled to appear in court on June 26 for a pre-trial hearing in his New York state case. The court's decisions on the admissibility of evidence going forward are expected to shape the trajectory of both state and federal proceedings. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Axios
30 minutes ago
- Axios
"Who cares": Congress' Dems say good riddance to Karine Jean-Pierre
If former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre thought she would set off a five-alarm fire among top Democrats by leaving the party, she is about to be sorely disappointed. Why it matters: Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Axios characterized her personal motives as too transparent to be a knock on the party — and they don't exactly feel like they're losing their best messenger either. "Who cares," exclaimed one House Democrat. "It's easy for paid operatives to leave the party ... until they need something." Said another: "Her explanation for this move is as confusing and disjointed as her answers in her White House press briefings." Jean-Pierre did not respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: Jean-Pierre revealed Wednesday that she is becoming an independent after serving in two Democratic presidential administrations. The announcement coincides with the release of a new book, "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines." The book's description decries "blind loyalty to a two-party democratic system" and promises to delve into "the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision." What they're saying: "Other than Sean Spicer ... she was the worst press secretary in American history," a third House Democrat told Axios of Jean-Pierre. "There were rumors that the Biden folks were trying to get rid of her because she's so terrible," the lawmaker said, speculating that she is trying to curry favor with Republicans to avoid a congressional subpoena. "I don't know who wrote her book. We know she couldn't give a press conference without reading every word from her briefing," they added. Zoom in: Jean-Pierre has also been lit up by her former Biden White House colleagues, with one former official telling Axios' Alex Thompson she was "one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I've ever worked with." "She had meltdowns after any interview that asked about a topic not sent over by producers," the official said. Said another: "The amount of time that was spent coddling [Jean-Pierre] and appeasing her was astronomical compared to our attention on actual matters of substance." Zoom out: The latest Bidenworld infighting comes after the release of a new book from Thompson and CNN's Jake Tapper, " Original Sin," which recounts how Biden's team shielded him from public scrutiny about his age.
Axios
30 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
