A federal judge in Rhode Island has issued a ruling that blocks an order which would have stripped billions in federal funding earmarked for infrastructure projects in states not cooperating with the immigration policies of the Trump administration. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr., comes as a significant victory for 20 Democratic-led states that challenged the directive from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and its Secretary, Sean Duffy.
In a preliminary injunction issued late Thursday, McConnell determined that the plaintiff states are likely to prevail in their case. He noted that Duffy overstepped his authority by imposing new eligibility requirements on funds that Congress had already earmarked for transportation. The judge criticized the “arbitrary and capricious” nature of the stipulations linking immigration enforcement with the allocation of federally approved funds.
“This directive lacks clarity on how states are expected to align with federal immigration enforcement in order to secure transportation funding that is crucial for maintaining public safety and efficiency,” McConnell stated in his 10-page order, issued ahead of an imminent deadline for grant funding applications.
The coalition of states bringing the lawsuit includes California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha expressed gratitude for the court’s recognition, emphasizing that such federal actions undermine state rights and public safety.
During a hearing, McConnell appeared skeptical of the DOT’s interpretation of its authority, questioning how a federal agency could dictate terms on funding that Congress has already approved. “Federal agencies have only the appropriations power granted to them by Congress,” he remarked, emphasizing the constitutional basis for the dispute.
The legal challenge specifically targets an April directive from Duffy that mandated state compliance with federal immigration policies to access federally appropriated grants. This stance was described by Delbert Tran of the California Department of Justice as an attempt to coerce states into functioning as extensions of federal immigration enforcement.
In defense of the directive, Bloom contended that it merely urged states to adhere to existing federal immigration laws. However, McConnell indicated that the Trump administration’s actions against sanctuary cities, which have not aggressively enforced immigration policies, suggest a more coercive intent behind the directive.
Concerns raised by the states focused on the potential fallout from withholding transportation funding, arguing that it could lead to increased accidents and fatalities among travelers. “The elimination of such critical funding would have dire consequences on public safety,” the states’ brief cautioned.
While Bloom defended the DOT’s position by stating that actions impeding federal law impact the safety of transportation systems, McConnell remained unconvinced about the legality of the actions taken by the secretary. The outcome of this ruling could have lasting implications for state-federal relations regarding immigration enforcement and infrastructure funding.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.