Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Conditions on Disaster Funding

A federal judge in Rhode Island on Tuesday accused the Trump administration of trying to 'bully' states into accepting conditions that require them to cooperate on immigration enforcement to secure disaster funding after he ruled those actions unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge William Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush, had issued a summary judgment last month stating that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could not impose such conditions.

Despite this ruling, a coalition of 20 Democratic state attorneys general argued that DHS later attached these conditions to grants, with language indicating they would remain in effect if the case was stayed or vacated.

Smith ordered DHS to permanently cease enforcing these conditions against the states that filed the lawsuit. He mandated that the agency amend its documents within seven days to eliminate references to immigration law compliance as a condition for funding.

Smith criticized the agency's actions, saying they contradict his earlier order. He emphasized that the conditional nature of the requirement was coercive. 'Defendants’ new condition is not a good faith effort to comply with the order; it is a ham-handed attempt to bully the states into making promises they have no obligation to make at the risk of losing critical disaster funding,' he stated.

The states argued in their complaint that they had relied on federal funding for disaster preparedness and response for decades. They contended that the Trump administration's conditions risked funding essential for services like earthquake mitigation and wildfire management.

The DHS was accused of attempting to disrupt the emergency management system by holding funding hostage unless states committed their resources to federal immigration enforcement, which they claimed exceeded state law limits.

In response, DHS maintained that they were within their rights to warn states about the conditions, citing the possibility of the ruling being overturned on appeal. They contended that the lawsuit was moot since they had already decided to exclude some programs from the immigration requirements.

This judgement highlights the ongoing tension between state autonomy and federal enforcement, emphasizing the courts' role in maintaining a balance when it comes to disaster funding and immigration policy.