States Launch Legal Action Against Federal Agencies Over Election and Immigration Requirements
More than 20 states have initiated a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding newly imposed election and immigration conditions tied to federal aid. The states argue that these agencies have breached the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Appropriations Clause by imposing these additional requirements on billions intended for anti-terrorism and emergency response initiatives.
The lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island, involves 25 states along with the District of Columbia, including California, Colorado, Arizona, and Washington. The plaintiffs contend that the adjustments are a form of retaliation due to previous judicial failures of FEMA and DHS, which sought to cut federal funding from states that allegedly opposed the administration’s immigration policies.
The Homeland Security Grant Program, one of FEMA’s primary funding avenues, currently mandates states to verify the citizenship of registered voters through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program. This requirement has left over $740 million in funding inaccessible, greatly affecting states’ efforts in counter-terrorism and emergency management.
Additionally, FEMA has revised its funding criteria to enable it to withdraw financial support from states at any time if they are deemed noncompliant with established “agency priorities.” According to the plaintiffs, this opens the door for arbitrary budget cuts based on vague standards.
The states assert that Congress has not granted any agency the authority to alter state election laws, compel cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, or withhold funding indiscriminately. They maintain that eligibility criteria for federal funds should be clear and well-defined, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
In 2025, DHS adapted its terms to require states and other recipients to comply with federal immigration law. The plaintiffs argue that FEMA has also adjusted funding allocations for specific grant recipients labeled as “sanctuary,” branding these alterations as both arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs argue that the new election-related stipulations infringe upon constitutional mandates that allow states to govern elections independently. They highlight that states will face withholding of up to 20% of their grants until compliance with these election conditions is verified. In response to concerns about election security, FEMA has insisted that recipients of the Homeland Security Grant Program must implement specific changes, such as transitioning to voting systems that handle hand-written ballots and carry out manual audits.
The plaintiffs have challenged the legality of these new election requirements, labeling them as arbitrary and disregarding prior investments made by states in their electoral infrastructure. They emphasize that vague guidelines from DHS cannot be followed if not fully adopted.
Meanwhile, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has voiced concerns that the Trump administration is attempting to enforce its immigration policies on state and local governments through financial pressures. Bonta pointed out that previous judicial outcomes have not favored these tactics and anticipates a similar result in this case, stressing that communities deserve better than having necessary resources entangled in political maneuvering.
Additionally, the plaintiffs maintain that current regulations do not stipulate the use of the SAVE program for managing voter registration databases, with many states having existing privacy laws prohibiting the sharing of voter information with federal entities. The lawsuit seeks a judicial order for FEMA and DHS to issue funding opportunity notices devoid of election, immigration, or termination conditions, aiming to protect state autonomy amidst shifting federal policies.
