A federal judge has halted the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from reducing funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in states that maintain sanctuary policies and refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In March, the DHS outlined new requirements that states must meet to access these FEMA funds, emphasizing that state agencies should collaborate with ICE rather than maintain sanctuary policies that prevent agents from detaining undocumented individuals.
In response to the DHS memorandum, several sanctuary states, including Illinois, California, and Maryland, initiated legal action against the Trump administration over the requirements aimed at dismantling sanctuary policies to secure FEMA funds.
This week, District Judge William Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush to the US District Court for Rhode Island, addressed the case concerning the sanctuary states.
“…The conditions for funding are arbitrary, whimsical, and unconstitutional,” Smith stated in his ruling.
The plaintiffs’ state is facing irreparable harm. Any losses in emergency and disaster funding cannot be recouped later, and the broader effects on disaster response and public safety are significant and unquantifiable. Additionally, while withholding disaster relief directly impacts the plaintiff states and their residents, relief through injunctions is currently available. The balance of equities clearly favors the plaintiffs’ state.
Moreover, ensuring access to disaster and emergency relief aligns with the public interest. Various courts have previously indicated that there’s no public interest in maintaining illegal institutional actions. Therefore, the court determined that a permanent injunction is warranted, thereby permanently preventing the defendant from enforcing the contested terms against the plaintiff state.
Smith referenced the Supreme Court case Trump vs. Casa, which indicated that lower courts lack the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, characterizing such actions as judicial overreach.
“Trump vs. Casa limited the scope of universal injunctions, but the courts notably did not discount the implications of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because they ‘set aside’ the actions of unlawful agencies,” Smith wrote. “This court seems to maintain a vacatur still under the APA, indicating that a valid remedy exists.”
“The court concludes that the contested terms are arbitrary and whimsical per the APA and unconstitutional concerning the expenditure clause,” Smith added. “Thus, those terms will be deemed void. In light of this determination, a permanent injunction preventing the defendant from enforcing the disputed terms against the plaintiff state is justified.”
The case is titled Illinois vs. FEMA, no. 1:25-CV-00206, in the US District Court for Rhode Island.
