Judge Blocks Trump Rule Linking Transport Funds to Immigration/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot withhold transportation funds from states refusing to support immigration enforcement. The decision came after 20 states sued over what they called an unconstitutional directive. The ruling protects billions in federal infrastructure funding amid the ongoing legal fight.
Federal Court Halts Immigration Funding Threat Quick Looks
- Judge bars Trump administration from enforcing funding condition
- 20 states sued over immigration-related transportation grant threats
- States argue sovereignty and law enforcement trust are at risk
- “Duffy Directive” linked funding to immigration cooperation
- Funds support highways, bridges, transit, and more nationwide
Judge Blocks Trump Rule Linking Transport Funds to Immigration
Deep Look
In a significant legal blow to the Trump administration’s immigration strategy, a federal judge on Thursday barred federal officials from conditioning transportation funding on state cooperation with immigration enforcement. The ruling temporarily blocks a controversial policy that threatened to withhold billions of dollars from states resisting the president’s agenda.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr., presiding in Rhode Island, issued the preliminary injunction after 20 states filed a lawsuit challenging the so-called “Duffy Directive.” The directive, named after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, sought to penalize states that declined to help enforce federal immigration policies. While no funding was cut yet, the April 24 notice to state governments triggered widespread concern over the imminent loss of critical infrastructure dollars.
In his ruling, McConnell stated, “The States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants’ unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions.” He emphasized the financial and constitutional consequences of the directive: from jeopardizing billions in public infrastructure funding to undermining state sovereignty over local law enforcement.
States involved in the lawsuit include California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon, and 15 others. Their attorneys general argued the directive would put them in a no-win situation—either comply with a policy that compromises trust between immigrant communities and police or lose funding necessary for roads, bridges, rail systems, and airports.
“The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition… or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars,” the lawsuit stated, highlighting how the policy could deter immigrants from reporting crimes or accessing health services.
Acting U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island Sara Miron Bloom defended the administration’s stance, asserting that Congress had empowered the Department of Transportation to establish conditions for distributing grant funds. She argued that asking states to cooperate with federal law enforcement is a legitimate requirement and claimed that any funding delay would not constitute lasting harm.
Bloom also warned that releasing funds now to non-compliant states would make it difficult to recover the money if the administration ultimately prevails in court. But the judge sided with the states, noting that the damage from immediate funding cuts would be far more severe.
The court’s decision doesn’t resolve the case but preserves the financial status quo while legal arguments play out. It signals a judicial resistance to executive attempts to coerce state compliance on immigration through unrelated funding mechanisms, echoing previous federal rulings that upheld state rights in similar confrontations under earlier Trump-era policies.
As the case proceeds, states will retain access to federal infrastructure dollars critical to transportation networks across the country. Meanwhile, the broader constitutional question—whether the federal government can tie law enforcement cooperation to grant funding—remains under judicial review.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.