US judge blocks Trump plan to tie states’ transportation funds to immigration enforcement

On Thursday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from forcing 20 Democratic states to cooperate with immigration authorities to access billions of dollars in transportation subsidies.

Federal District Judge John McConnell of Providence, Rhode Island, granted the states’ request for an injunction blocking the Department of Transportation’s policy, saying the states had a strong likelihood of succeeding on some or all of their claims.

The Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The decision follows a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic attorneys general, who claimed the administration was attempting to withhold federal funds to pressure states into adopting Trump’s hardline immigration policies.

The states argued that U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy lacked the authority to impose immigration-related conditions on funding allocated by Congress to help states maintain roads, highways, bridges, and other transportation projects.

Since returning to office on January 20, Trump has signed several executive orders calling for the defunding of federal “sanctuary jurisdictions” that refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as his administration prepares to carry out mass deportations.

These jurisdictions typically have laws and policies that restrict or prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal agents with immigration-related arrests.

The Justice Department has filed a series of lawsuits against these jurisdictions, including Illinois, New York, and Colorado, challenging laws in these Democratic-majority states that the department says hinder federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit was filed before McConnell, appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, after Duffy informed states on April 24 that they could lose transportation funding if they did not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its immigration enforcement efforts.

The states contend that the policy is vague, poorly justified, and unconstitutional—placing unclear conditions on their eligibility for congressionally approved funding.

The administration argued that this policy was within Duffy’s discretion and that its terms should be respected, as there is nothing wrong with federal law requiring states to comply with it.

The 20 states are pursuing a similar case separately in Rhode Island, challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s new immigration requirements for grant programs.