Federal Court Declares Trump's Immigration Funding Conditions Unconstitutional

Wed Oct 15 2025 01:38:36 GMT+0300 (Eastern European Summer Time)

A U.S. District Judge has ruled against the Trump administration's attempts to impose immigration enforcement conditions on disaster funding for states, emphasizing the protection of critical federal disaster relief resources.

In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge William Smith determined that the Trump administration's conditions requiring states to enforce immigration laws in exchange for disaster funding are unconstitutional. This ruling provides relief to states that rely on federal funding for disaster response and recovery, maintaining that such conditions violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The decision halted any future efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to enforce similar conditions, reinforcing the importance of disaster funding integrity.

A federal judge in Rhode Island has strongly rebuked the Trump administration for imposing unconstitutional conditions related to immigration enforcement on disaster funding for states. U.S. District Judge William Smith ruled that the infamous attempt was a form of coercion that compromised essential emergency funding.

In his ruling, Judge Smith asserted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lacked the legal authority to enforce conditions requiring states to participate in immigration enforcement as a precondition for receiving disaster funds. He highlighted that such actions could undermine vital funding aimed at disaster preparedness and response, especially for states impacted by natural calamities.

Despite a prior ruling in September that deemed such conditions unconstitutional, a coalition of 20 state Democratic attorneys general alleged that DHS continued to attach immigration requirements to federal grants, warning that states risked losing funding unless they complied. Judge Smith ordered DHS to cease these enforcement efforts and rectify related documentation within seven days.

He accused the agency of making “a ham-handed attempt” to intimidate states into compliance, describing this conduct as not in good faith and contrary to the ruling’s essence. The implications of this ruling extend beyond mere legalities, safeguarding states from having to allocate their limited resources to immigration enforcement, a responsibility traditionally managed by federal authorities.

Judicial examination showed that for decades, states have depended on federal funding to manage emergency situations. The judge recognized that conditions imposed by the Trump administration jeopardized vital funds needed for mitigating disasters like earthquakes, floods, and wildfires.

In response, the DHS had proposed that its new conditions did not violate the previous ruling since it had intended to exclude certain programs from having to comply with the immigration rules. However, the judge maintained that plaintiffs were right to challenge this coercion, as compliance with such conditions could lead to significant legal consequences for states.

This ruling stands as a critical reminder of the constitutional constraints on federal power and the importance of protecting state resources vital for disaster management.