U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy barred the Trump administration from cutting more than $230 million in homeland security grants to states and D.C. that declined to follow its immigration-enforcement directives. In a 48-page decision, McElroy called the cuts an unlawful politicization of vital counterterrorism and law enforcement funding, citing incidents such as the Brown University shooting to illustrate the grants’ importance. A coalition of 12 state attorneys general welcomed the ruling; DHS plans to appeal.
Judge Blocks White House Cuts To Homeland Security Grants Tied To Immigration Policy
The Department of Homeland Security and Fema cut more than $230m in federal grants for seven states and the District of Columbia.Photograph: Gene J Puskar/AP
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to reduce federal homeland security funding — including disaster-related aid — for states that decline to cooperate with its immigration-enforcement directives.
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy of Rhode Island, a 2018 Trump appointee, issued the ruling on Monday and described the case as “another example” of the administration conditioning state and local assistance on immigration policy.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had moved to cut more than $230 million in federal grants intended for Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia. Those grants are part of roughly $1 billion distributed annually to states and local governments for counterterrorism and related public-safety programs.
In a sharply worded, 48-page opinion, Judge McElroy condemned the administration’s actions as an abuse of grant authority, emphasizing the special responsibility of federal agencies entrusted with public safety.
“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 warned that the technicalities of administrative law should not obscure the real-world stakes: these funds support critical counterterrorism initiatives and local law enforcement responses. The opinion cites the Brown University mass shooting — in which a gunman killed two people and injured nine others — as an example of how federal grant money likely aided law enforcement and emergency-response efforts.
“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.”
A coalition of 12 state attorneys general challenged the cuts in court and hailed the decision as a major victory. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the administration’s attempt to politicize public-safety funding was illegal and dangerous, and called the ruling an important step toward protecting residents from reckless funding cuts.
The Department of Homeland Security has indicated it will appeal the ruling, Axios reported. The Associated Press contributed reporting to the coverage of the case.
What This Means: The decision temporarily prevents DHS and FEMA from withholding the contested grants while legal challenges proceed. The ruling underscores judicial scrutiny of federal agencies that condition public-safety funding on compliance with immigration-enforcement policies and may shape how such grants are administered going forward.
