Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions.
Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved.
'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.'
On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent.
Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position.
'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents.
But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed.
But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for health benefits discrimination
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees, a decision that failed to give the same ADA protections to retirees that current employees have. The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can't sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That upheld a lower court's ruling that the ADA didn't apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that someone claiming discrimination under the ADA must prove that she held, or wanted, a job that she was able to perform at the time of the alleged discrimination. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination," he wrote. "And the statute tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination." If Congress wants to expand the law to protect retirees like Stanley, it can, he continued. "But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one," he wrote. 'Essential building blocks of the American dream' In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said retirement benefits are 'essential building blocks of the American dream.' 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' she wrote in the dissent that was joined in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'It is lamentable that this Court so diminishes disability rights that the People (through their elected representatives) established more than three decades ago.' Jackson said Congress could step in 'to fix the mistake the Court has made.' The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued. The law covers someone who 'with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.' Stanley's lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003. When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson's disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself. Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65. The city countered that even though Stanley's benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years. The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.
Los Angeles Times
34 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
BOSTON — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, in a statement posted on Bluesky, welcomed the ruling. 'The court granted a temporary order halting the Trump administration's attempt to hold critical funding for states if they don't comply with their cruel immigration policies,' Campbell said. This would have put critical funding for transportation in MA at risk. It's not just wrong – it's illegal.' In statement posted on X, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said the ruling wasn't surprising. 'I directed states who want federal DOT money to comply with federal immigration laws,' Duffy said. 'But, no surprise, an Obama-appointed judge has ruled that states can openly defy our federal immigration laws. This is judicial activism pure and simple and I will continue to fight in the courts.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed. But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said. Casey and Boone write for the Associated Press.
Politico
38 minutes ago
- Politico
Majority of staff axed at Voice of America
The Trump administration on Friday sent out termination notices to hundreds of employees at Voice of America. Included in that group are employees working for the network's Persian-language service who were called back from administrative leave just last week in the wake of Israel's attack on Iran, according to two people familiar with the decision. The move — which makes official what has long been expected since hundreds of contract employees got termination notices in early May — is a part of the Trump administration's sweeping target to downsize the government and remake America's role in the global order. Critics of the administration's focus on VOA have said that the network has played a vital role in combatting disinformation abroad. But the administration says these cuts are in service of 'cutting waste' and putting 'American taxpayers first.' 'Today, we took decisive action to effectuate President Trump's agenda to shrink the out-of-control federal bureaucracy,' senior presidential adviser Kari Lake said in a statement released Friday . The move eliminates 1,400 jobs at U.S. Agency for Global Media, VOA's parent agency, roughly an 85 percent cut to the workforce. The last day on payroll for the employees will be Labor Day. Some of those affected by Friday's cuts who are not old enough for mandatory retirement, are being terminated without severance pay, according to one of the people. The move would contradict USAGM's policy on severance. 'As our legal team fight[s] for our rights under the law, we call on Congress to continue its long tradition of bipartisan support for VOA,' the named plaintiffs in VOA's lawsuit against the Trump administration said in a statement. 'Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and extremist groups are flooding the global information space with anti-American propaganda. Do not cede this ground by silencing America's voice.' Lake said in her statement that 250 employees will remain across the USAGM, VOA and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting. She noted that none of the OCB's 33 employees were terminated. The government-funded network, which was founded 80 years ago to combat Nazi disinformation during World War II, has — largely unsuccessfully — fought the administration's decision in court. The administration sent RIF notices to employees in small batches for weeks. But Friday's notice could deliver the coup de grâce for Voice of America after decades of providing the world with accurate information in countries where media is state-run.
