Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Tie Transportation Funding to Immigration Enforcement
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Tie Transportation Funding to Immigration Enforcement
On Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s policy that conditioned federal transportation grant funding on states’ cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The lawsuit, filed by twenty Democratic-led states, argued that the U.S. Department of Transportation lacked the legal authority to impose such a condition on the federally allocated funds. The states contended that the administration was improperly leveraging federal funds to compel adherence to its immigration policies. They asserted that the connection between immigration cooperation and the congressional purpose of the grants—infrastructure development—was illegitimate.
Judge McConnell, an Obama appointee, agreed with the states’ argument, stating that Congress had not granted the Transportation Secretary the authority to impose immigration-related conditions on transportation funding. His ruling emphasized the lack of a legitimate connection between immigration cooperation and the intended use of the funds for infrastructure projects such as highways and bridges.
The administration’s policy, implemented via a directive from then-Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on April 24th, threatened to withhold funding from local governments that did not assist federal immigration officers. This action was part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to penalize “sanctuary jurisdictions”—areas that limit cooperation with ICE—by cutting off federal funds. Multiple executive orders aimed at this goal were signed after President Trump’s return to office on January 20th.
The judge’s decision highlighted the administration’s failure to clearly define the standards for cooperation with ICE. This lack of clarity further fueled the ongoing legal debate surrounding the conflict between sanctuary policies and federal mandates.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the ruling, stating that it was a victory for state rights and infrastructure development, and that the Trump administration was using transportation funds as leverage to force compliance with its immigration policies. The twenty states involved are also pursuing a related case challenging similar restrictions imposed by the Department of Homeland Security on other federal grant programs.
The preliminary injunction temporarily prevents the Trump administration from enforcing its policy. The legal challenge continues, with the potential for further court proceedings and appeals.
The ruling underscores the ongoing legal battles between the federal government and states over immigration enforcement, particularly concerning the limits of federal power to coerce state compliance with federal immigration policies. The case serves as a significant example of the broader legal pushback against the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategies.
Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.