A decision by Chief Judge John McConnell of the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island has halted an attempt by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce immigration cooperation as a condition for state grants. This move, affecting several Democratic-led states, comes as part of a larger legal battle against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
The legal dispute centered around millions of dollars in grants intended for law enforcement and juvenile justice programs. Judge McConnell ruled in favor of 22 states and the District of Columbia, delivering a permanent injunction against the conditions the DOJ sought to impose. The case was propelled by New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and represents a continued effort by Democratic attorneys general to challenge the administration’s strategies on immigration.
This particular legal battle began in August 2025, with states opposing a plan to link over $1.3 billion in Victims of Crime Act funding to compliance with immigration enforcement. After initial resistance led to the abandonment of this plan, the DOJ targeted other grant programs, prompting further legal responses from the states. These grants include the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, offering criminal justice funding that amounted to $80 million in fiscal year 2025.
The states contested the DOJ’s actions on three legal grounds, arguing that the department lacked the authority to impose such conditions, that the imposition was arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that it violated the Spending Clause of the US Constitution. This decision echoes similar rulings from Trump’s first term, when attempts to condition the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Formula Grants on immigration cooperation were blocked.
The ruling signifies a notable legal precedent, reinforcing the separation of powers regarding federal grant conditions and immigration policy. For a detailed account of the ruling, read the full report here. This case underscores ongoing tensions between state governments and federal immigration policy, with potential implications for how future administrations manage funding and policy alignment. Additional details can be explored through coverage in NBC News.