A federal judge is blocking President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from cutting off Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds to sanctuary states that refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In March, DHS issued new requirements for states seeking such FEMA funds, including making sure that state agencies cooperate with ICE rather than carrying out sanctuary policies to prevent agents from being able to take custody of criminal illegal aliens.
Following the DHS memo, sanctuary states like Illinois, California, and Maryland, among others, banded together to sue the Trump administration over the requirements that would force them to end their sanctuary policies to secure FEMA funds.
WATCH — Democrats Want to Intimidate ICE Agents:
This week, District Judge William Smith, appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island by former President George W. Bush, sided with the sanctuary states in the case.
“… the contested conditions are both arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional,” Smith wrote in his ruling:
Second, Plaintiff States stand to suffer irreparable harm; the effect of the loss of emergency and disaster funds cannot be recovered later, and the downstream effect on disaster response and public safety are real and not compensable. Third, withholding disaster aid harms Plaintiff States and their residents directly, whereas injunctive relief is the status quo. The balance of equities clearly tips in favor of Plaintiff States. [Emphasis added]
And finally, protecting access to disaster and emergency relief is squarely aligned with the public interest. As other courts have noted before, “there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Given all the above, the Court finds a permanent injunction is warranted and thus permanently enjoins Defendants from enforcing the contested conditions against Plaintiff States. [Emphasis added]
Smith was able to work around the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA, which found that lower courts do not have the authority to issue blanket nationwide injunctions, declaring such action an abuse of their judicial power.
“The holding in Trump v. Casa restricted universal injunctions, but the Court expressly left unaffected the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) command to ‘set aside’ unlawful agency action,” Smith wrote. “It appears to this Court, then, that vacatur under the APA remains, for now, a valid remedy.”
“Based on its findings above, the Court declares that the contested conditions are both arbitrary and capricious under the APA and unconstitutional under the Spending Clause,” Smith continued. “As such, the contested conditions are vacated. In light of this holding, a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing the contested conditions against Plaintiff States is also appropriate.”
The case is Illinois v. FEMA, No. 1:25-cv-00206 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter here.
Read the full article here