Federal Court Upholds Funding for Sanctuary States Amid Immigration Controversy

Wed Dec 24 2025 06:44:22 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

A ruling has blocked the Trump administration's efforts to redirect federal funds away from states that resist immigration enforcement, affirming the importance of supporting local counterterrorism programs.

A federal judge ruled in favor of a coalition of 12 states, blocking the Trump administration's attempt to cut federal funding based on immigration enforcement cooperation. The judge noted the arbitrary nature of the cuts and emphasized the critical role of federal grants in supporting public safety.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy has blocked the Trump administration's effort to withdraw federal Homeland Security funding from states that refuse to comply with certain immigration enforcement policies. This decision comes after a coalition of 12 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the federal government for reducing grant allocations, asserting that such cuts were punitive toward ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions.

More than $233 million was initially set to be cut from Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington as part of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) funding adjustments. These funds, part of a $1 billion grant program, are intended to bolster public safety, primarily through law enforcement and emergency services.

The cuts were prompted shortly after a previous court decision deemed it unconstitutional for the federal government to make Homeland Security funding contingent on a state's cooperation with immigration enforcement efforts.

In her comprehensive 48-page ruling, Judge McElroy argued that the reasoning behind the reallocation of funds appeared to lack a rational basis. She wrote, What else could defendants’ decisions to cut funding to specific counterterrorism programming... be if not arbitrary and capricious? This conclusion highlighted the alarming potential for political motivations behind what should be objective funding criteria.

Furthermore, Judge McElroy ordered the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate the funding allocations to the affected states, signaling a clear rebuke of the administration's approach to federal grant management. She stressed that the funding is vital for counterterrorism efforts and local law enforcement, particularly in light of recent tragedies, such as the deadly attack at Brown University.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell celebrated the ruling, stating that it protects states from punitive measures for refusing to endorse the administration's immigration policies. This victory ensures that the Trump Administration cannot punish states that refuse to help carry out its cruel immigration agenda, she remarked, asserting that lifesaving resources for disaster preparedness must not be weaponized in this manner.

The implications of this ruling not only safeguard financial resources essential for local authorities but also emphasize the importance of equitable funding based on assessed risks rather than political bias. As discussions around immigration enforcement continue, the preservation of grant funding practices remains a critical issue in ensuring community safety and resilience.