In a significant legal development, 20 states, led by California, have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policy that ties federal grant funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. The lawsuits, filed on May 13, 2025, challenge the administration’s attempts to leverage federal funds as a tool to pressure states into assisting with immigration law enforcement, including the arrest of undocumented individuals. These states argue that the policy undermines state sovereignty and is an unlawful use of federal power.
At the heart of the lawsuits is the claim that the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security are unlawfully withholding essential funds. These grants, which support critical services such as transportation, emergency preparedness, and counter-terrorism, are at risk unless states comply with federal immigration objectives. According to the states, this constitutes an illegal condition for receiving federal funds, which are essential for the functioning of state and local services.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, leading the legal charge, called the administration’s actions “blatantly illegal,” highlighting how it infringes upon the constitutional powers of Congress over federal spending. The states argue that federal funding cannot be used to force states into compliance with policies that go against their local laws and priorities. They maintain that such a move represents an overreach of executive power, bypassing the authority of Congress.
In contrast, the Trump administration defends the policy, asserting that jurisdictions that hinder federal immigration enforcement should not be entitled to receive federal grants. The Department of Homeland Security claims that withholding funds is necessary to ensure that state and local authorities cooperate with federal immigration efforts.
This legal action follows a prior federal court ruling that blocked similar attempts to restrict funding for 16 cities and counties, further amplifying the stakes of this case. The outcome of these lawsuits could have a lasting impact on the relationship between federal and state governments, particularly regarding the use of federal funds to influence local immigration enforcement policies.
As the legal battle unfolds, the resolution of this case may have far-reaching consequences, not only for federal-state relations but also for how states manage their autonomy in deciding their stance on immigration enforcement and the distribution of essential public funds.
