Federal judge says Trump administration must restore disaster money to Democratic states

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from redirecting Homeland Security funding away from states that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, delivering a significant legal victory for so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions across the country.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a 48-page ruling Monday that solidified a win for the coalition of 12 attorneys general who sued the administration earlier this year. The states took legal action after learning their federal grants would be drastically reduced due to their immigration policies.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had cut more than $233 million in funding from Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The money is part of a $1 billion program where allocations are typically based on assessed security risks, with states then passing most funds to local police and fire departments for critical emergency preparedness initiatives.

In her strongly worded decision, McElroy, a Trump appointee, found that the federal government was improperly conditioning Homeland Security Grant Program funding on states’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement policies.

“What else could defendants’ decisions to cut funding to specific counterterrorism programming by conspicuous round numbered amounts — including by slashing off the millions-place digits of awarded sums — be if not arbitrary and capricious?” McElroy wrote. “Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula could produce this result.”

The ruling comes on the heels of another federal judge’s decision in a separate case that found it unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to assist with immigration enforcement in order to receive FEMA disaster funding.

McElroy highlighted the recent shooting at Brown University, where a gunman killed two students and injured nine others, as an example of the type of tragedy where the federal program’s funding would be essential for emergency response capabilities.

“Defendants’ wanton abuse of their role in federal grant administration is particularly troublesome given the fact that they have been entrusted with a most solemn duty: safeguarding our nation and its citizens,” McElroy wrote. “To hold hostage funding for programs like these based solely on what appear to be defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful.”

The judge ordered the Department of Homeland Security to restore the previously announced funding allocations to all plaintiff states, emphasizing that while “the intricacies of administrative law and the terms and conditions on federal grants may seem abstract to some, the funding at issue here supports vital counterterrorism and law enforcement programs.”

The decision represents a major setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to pressure states and localities into assisting with federal immigration enforcement by leveraging critical security funding. The administration has consistently argued that jurisdictions limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) undermine public safety and national security.

DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin expressed strong disagreement with the ruling, saying in a statement that the department plans to appeal.

“This judicial sabotage threatens the safety of our states, counties, towns, and weakens the entire nation,” McLaughlin said. “We will fight to restore these critical reforms and protect American lives.”

Meanwhile, attorneys general who led the legal challenge celebrated the court’s decision.

“This victory ensures that the Trump Administration cannot punish states that refuse to help carry out its cruel immigration agenda, particularly by denying them lifesaving funding that helps prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell in a statement.

The case highlights the ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and states’ rights to determine their own law enforcement policies. The ruling reinforces previous court decisions finding that the federal government cannot coerce state and local governments into enforcing federal immigration law by threatening to withhold unrelated funding.