DOT Funding: 20 States Bring a Lawsuit to Challenge New Rules

20 States Sue USDOT Over Immigration Conditions on DOT Funding

A group of 20 state attorneys general has filed two lawsuits against the federal government. The legal challenges focus on new rules that tie DOT funding and other federal grants to cooperation with immigration enforcement.

The lawsuits were filed against the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The attorneys general (AGs) argue that the new funding conditions are unlawful and go beyond the legal authority of these agencies.

DOT Funding Requirements Challenged in Court

The first lawsuit targets USDOT and Secretary Sean Duffy. It challenges changes made to federal transportation grants. These grants provide money for highway construction, public transit, and improvements to airports and railroads.

Under the updated rules, states must agree to assist with federal civil immigration enforcement in order to qualify for DOT funding. Several applicants have reported seeing this new requirement added to programs managed by the Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.

The AGs argue that these conditions are not authorized by Congress and that USDOT does not have the authority to enforce them. They warn the changes could delay or block major transportation projects across the country.

Emergency Management Grants Tied to Immigration Enforcement

The second lawsuit focuses on DHS and FEMA. It challenges similar immigration-related conditions added to grants for emergency services and disaster response.

In February, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem instructed FEMA and its sub-agencies to stop awarding funds to jurisdictions that do not assist in federal immigration enforcement. In March, DHS changed its grant terms to make immigration cooperation a requirement for receiving funding.

These grants typically support disaster preparedness, terrorism prevention, and emergency response. The AGs say the conditions are unconstitutional and contrary to how Congress intended the funds to be used.

Loss of DOT Funding Could Harm Public Safety

The AGs say that tying DOT funding and emergency aid to immigration enforcement puts communities at risk. Without access to these funds, states may not be able to complete key infrastructure projects, respond to disasters, or maintain public safety services.

New Jersey alone receives more than $2 billion each year from these federal programs. That money helps support road construction, bridge repairs, law enforcement, and emergency response operations. NJ AG Matthew J. Platkin says the new grant rules threaten to cut off these essential services.

The coalition also raises concerns about community trust. They say that requiring law enforcement to assist with immigration could damage relationships between police and immigrant communities. This, they argue, could make it harder to solve crimes and keep neighborhoods safe.

Attorney General Platkin Speaks Out

AG Platkin criticized the new federal funding rules, saying the administration is “playing political games” by threatening to withhold essential DOT funding and other public safety resources. He said pulling funding for law enforcement, emergency response, and infrastructure projects is “completely inexcusable.”

Platkin also described the move as unlawful and warned it could put residents at risk by limiting access to disaster preparedness and infrastructure support. He said the lawsuits aim to protect New Jersey communities from what he called “reckless actions” by the federal agencies.

States United Against Conditional DOT Funding

Joining New Jersey in the legal challenge are AGs from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont.

The lawsuits ask the courts to block the new conditions. The coalition seeks to restore access to DOT funding and emergency aid without tying those funds to immigration enforcement.

The court’s decision could have broad implications. It may determine whether federal agencies can require immigration cooperation in exchange for public safety and infrastructure funding.