Office of the
Illinois Attorney General
Kwame Raoul

Chicago – Attorney General Kwame Raoul today secured an important victory in a multistate lawsuit he is co-leading against the Trump administration over its attempt to illegally coerce states into sweeping immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold billions in federal funding for emergency preparedness and preventing and addressing terrorist attacks, mass shootings, wildfires, floods, cybersecurity threats and more.

The District Court for the District of Rhode Island today granted a motion for summary judgement filed by Raoul and 20 attorneys general in their lawsuit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In its opinion, the court held that the agencies violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by conditioning all federal funds from FEMA and DHS on states’ agreement to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.

“Today’s opinion acknowledges that the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and that the financial pressure the Trump administration is attempting to exert amounts to ‘economic dragooning,’ particularly as these funds support essential public safety responsibilities,” Raoul said. “I appreciate the court’s conclusion that DHS’ decision-making process was ‘wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary.’ The court’s ruling will ensure vital dollars that states rely on to prepare for and respond to emergencies are not withheld simply for political purposes. The rule of law matters, and I will continue to join with my colleagues to hold the administration accountable when it violates the law or our Constitution.” 

In February, Secretary Noem directed DHS and its sub-agencies, including FEMA, to cease federal funding to jurisdictions that do not assist the federal government in the enforcement of federal immigration law. In March, DHS amended the terms and conditions it places on all federal funds to require recipients to certify that they will assist in enforcing federal immigration law. These sweeping new conditions would require states and state agencies to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts or lose out on billions of federal dollars that states use to protect public safety.

In today’s decision, the court agreed that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act in adding the conditions, including because the agency failed to consider public safety in doing so and because the conditions are overly broad and ambiguous. The court further found that the conditions violate the Constitution’s Spending Clause. The court rejected DHS’ argument that placing immigration-related conditions on the grant funding was appropriate simply because many of the grants are designed to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Instead, the court determined that DHS made no serious attempt to provide a fact-based reason for its action. In fact, the court found that the “vague and confusing language” used in the conditions made it nearly impossible for states to comply.

In filing the lawsuit, Raoul and the coalition argued that the immigration conditions exceed DHS’s legal authority and violate the Constitution because the programs in question were established to help states prepare for, protect against, respond to and recover from catastrophic disasters, not for immigration-related purposes. The district court agreed, holding that imposing the condition on all DHS and FEMA programs, regardless of the purpose of those programs, was unlawful.

Last year, Illinois alone received more than $860 million in federal funding from FEMA and other parts of DHS.

The lawsuit, which was co-led by Raoul and the attorneys general of California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, was also joined by the attorneys general from Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont.