Judge rejects immigration enforcement condition for FEMA grants

Chris Johnson, CQ-Roll Call on Oct 14, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

WASHINGTON — A federal judge rebuked the Trump administration Tuesday for “a ham-handed attempt to bully the states” that also defied his court order against conditioning eligibility for federal funds on cooperation with immigration enforcement.

Judge William Smith of the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, an appointee of George W. Bush, last month issued an order to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from requiring those conditions on state and local recipients of Federal Emergency Management Agency grants.

Smith, in an order Tuesday, said DHS since then has inserted those conditions on award letters along with statements that the conditions will become immediately effective if Smith’s order is lifted or wiped out on an appeal.

“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 and other funding already appropriated by Congress,” Smith wrote.

The insertion of the language in effect means states are still being asked to agree to assist in federal immigration enforcement or else forgo the award of grants, and states have a right to accept grants without the conditions, Smith wrote.

“The fig leaf conditional nature of the requirement makes little difference,” Smith wrote. “No matter how confident Defendants may be of their chances on appeal, at present, the contested conditions are unlawful.”

Smith’s latest order bars FEMA from enforcing the contested conditions and “any materially similar term requiring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.”

Additionally, the order requires states to “amend all award documents” within seven days to remove all mention of compliance with immigration law from award letters to localities.

The order comes as critics have accused the Trump administration of refusing to comply with court orders, especially in litigation related to immigration.

Even though the inserted language anticipates an appeal, the government as of Tuesday appears to have not done so. The docket for the case contains no notice of appeal to the appellate court with jurisdiction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

Congress had appropriated more than $1 billion to the state under the initiatives, which include the Emergency Management Performance Grant, the Homeland Security Grant Program and Port Security Grant Program, according to a court filing in the cases from officials in 20 states.

The states argued the new language effectively requires them to affirm they would cooperate with federal officials in violation of the earlier order, saying the change “is materially identical to the text of the vacated and enjoined Contested Conditions.”

The states contended they must still agree to be bound by the conditions, it’s just they must “agree to be bound by them at a later date, if a specific event occurs.”

The Trump administration argued the conditional language did not deviate from the earlier order the judge, arguing the states “cite nothing that indicates that the Agency is currently enforcing the Contested Conditions in violation of this Court’s order.”