United States: In a decisive legal rebuke, a US district judge on Thursday derailed a key development by the Trump administration that aimed to make transportation grants contingent upon immigration enforcement cooperation, primarily targeting Democratic-led states.
The controversial move, spearheaded by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in April, warned jurisdictions that failing to collaborate broadly with federal immigration operations might result in substantial grant allocations being withheld. These funds, often critical for maintaining highways, airports, and public transit systems, were used as leverage in a broader campaign to penalize so-called “sanctuary” states and cities.
Two dozen states, overwhelmingly governed by Democrats, swiftly responded with legal opposition. Their argument: the federal executive lacks the jurisdiction to condition transportation funding—mandated by Congress—on unrelated immigration stances. The coalition of 20 states filed suit, asserting that the administration’s demands amounted to unauthorized federal coercion.
US District Judge John McConnell, presiding in Rhode Island, granted a preliminary injunction, effectively placing the administration’s directive on hold. The ruling safeguards states and their local governments from any punitive funding decisions while litigation continues.
Judge McConnell wrote that the administration’s plan was “arbitrary, capricious, and lacking in coherent parameters.” He emphasized that no federal statute empowered the Secretary of Transportation to saddle infrastructure grants with immigration enforcement demands. These funds, he noted, exist to ensure safe and efficient travel, not to serve as pawns in immigration policy debates, according to CBS News.
In a pointed rebuke, McConnell declared, “Congress never vested the Transportation Secretary with discretion to tether immigration compliance to highway and aviation funding. Such conditionality distorts legislative intent and undermines fiscal stability.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the plaintiffs, praised the injunction as a victory for state sovereignty. He accused former President Trump of weaponizing federal funds to “strong-arm localities into executing his harsh and irrational immigration agenda.”
Bonta stated, “The former president sought to transform infrastructure funding into a tool of political blackmail. He attempted to hold hostage the very dollars that keep our roads paved and skies secure.”
CBS News reported that both the White House and the Department of Transportation were approached for commentary but did not immediately respond.
This legal confrontation isn’t the first. Earlier in the year, a San Francisco-based judge halted another Trump initiative targeting sanctuary cities, citing overreach and constitutional overstepping. The courts have repeatedly signaled skepticism toward the administration’s attempts to link unrelated federal benefits with immigration directives.
Still, Secretary Duffy remains defiant. In a recent post on X, he declared, “The Department will NOT bankroll rogue states shirking their duty to assist federal immigration enforcement.” He further warned municipalities tolerating anti-ICE demonstrations or infrastructure disruptions: “If your city allows chaos while ignoring federal law—don’t expect a dime,” as reported by CBS News.
Critics argue that such threats are a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate dissenting states. Supporters contend that immigration enforcement is a national imperative and states must not obstruct it. Yet, legal precedent appears to favor a firewall between conditional federal grants and political leverage.
For now, the judicial order restores equilibrium, ensuring that transportation dollars remain insulated from immigration feuds. The broader battle over federalism and state independence, however, remains far from resolved.
