U.S. Department of Transportation sued over immigration policy tied to funding

Key Takeaways

• Twenty states sued DOT over rule tying infrastructure funds to cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
• States argue the DOT oversteps by imposing immigration-related conditions on transportation funding approved by Congress.
• DOT maintains linking funding to immigration compliance is about national security and uniform law enforcement.

Attorneys general from 20 states filed a lawsuit on May 13, 2025, against the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and its leader, Secretary Sean Duffy. The core of their complaint is a new federal rule. This rule tells states they can only receive money for roads, bridges, and other transportation needs if they help the federal government with certain immigration-related tasks. It means that access to infrastructure funding is now tied to state cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal immigration rules. The lawsuit, according to the states, is not only about money—it is about who controls important decisions in the U.S. and whether federal agencies are going beyond what they are allowed to do.

The New DOT Policy: Linking Federal Money to Immigration Compliance

The conflict began with a letter sent by Secretary Duffy on April 24, 2025. The letter laid out new “legal obligations” for any state that wants infrastructure funding:

• States must help with ICE investigations.
• They cannot give driver’s licenses to people without legal status.
• States must not do anything that stands in the way of federal immigration officers.

If states fail to meet these actions, Secretary Duffy said, they could lose access to money that pays for roads, bridges, public transit, and other key transportation projects. According to him, this is because states that do not cooperate “undermine federal sovereignty” and make the country’s transportation network less safe and less secure.

Many states say this goes too far. They believe the Trump administration’s approach tries to force them to take part in immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold the transportation dollars they need to keep their roads and bridges in good repair.

Why Are the States Suing the U.S. Department of Transportation?

The group of 20 states, most with Democratic governors, is challenging the DOT rule in federal court. Their argument is built on several main points:

1. Executive Overreach and the Power of the Purse

The main legal claim is that the executive branch, controlled by President Trump, does not have the authority to withhold money that Congress has already approved (also called appropriated). The power to decide where money goes—the “power of the purse”—is something only Congress can do. The lawsuit says the DOT’s move to add these immigration-related requirements to infrastructure funding is “an unlawful attempt to usurp” Congress’s authority.

The states say the DOT can’t use threats to force state and local governments to help with federal immigration work, especially when that work is not directly related to transportation. They argue that the U.S. Constitution sets clear rules for how federal money is handed out and that the DOT’s policy breaks those rules.

2. Harm to State Transportation Projects

States depend on federal transportation dollars to pay for road repairs, bridge maintenance, new highways, and even transit systems. By making this funding depend on state action with immigration, states say they will have to choose between two tough options:

• Give up key projects if they disagree with federal immigration rules.
• Redirect people and resources from their transportation departments to help with work they do not have special skills for—often at great expense.

Some states worry this will create a “domino effect.” If a state loses federal money, there may be more car crashes, bridge closures, unfinished repairs, or other public safety problems. The demand for safe, working roads and public transit is something that crosses political and regional lines. When money is held back, the public pays the price.

3. Administrative Burden and Costs

The states also say that making their agencies take on immigration enforcement creates big new burdens. Most state employees in transportation departments do not know how to carry out federal immigration laws. Training, hiring, and oversight would all cost more, and these are funds meant for roads, not policing.

Rather than helping fix roads and build new projects, state employees might get pulled into tracking down people with immigration issues. This takes them away from the job taxpayers expect them to do.

4. Coercion on State Policy Decisions

The lawsuit calls the DOT’s demand “unlawful coercion.” It says the federal government is stepping over the lines that separate federal and state powers. Under federal rules for grants, Congress decides the acceptable reasons for putting conditions on funding. The new DOT policy, according to the states, is using money to force states into helping with policies they may not support and that are unrelated to transportation.

The DOT and White House Argument

From the view of the DOT and the Trump administration, tying infrastructure funding to immigration policy is about keeping the country safe and making sure laws are followed fairly everywhere.

Their main points include:

• Federal transportation grants should only flow to states that are “fully compliant with federal legal obligations.”
• Noncompliance could weaken the nation’s ability to enforce laws and protect roads, public transit networks, and highways from risks connected to illegal immigration.
• They argue that these conditions help keep the entire transportation system safe by making sure every state cooperates and that the law is applied in the same way everywhere.

The administration says that by making sure states cooperate with ICE, national security and public safety are improved. They argue that Congress has let the DOT use conditions when handling grant money, so these rules are within its rights.

The Larger Battle: Grants, Sanctuary Cities, and State-Federal Power

As reported by VisaVerge.com, this is not the first time states and the federal government have argued about money and how states must act when they accept federal grants.

There is a long history of so-called “grant conditions” being added to federal money. Sometimes, the purpose is clear and connected to the projects being funded—for example, making road safety money depend on the legal drinking age. But the court cases around “sanctuary” cities—or communities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—have tested the limits of how far federal agencies can go.

In this case, the states say transportation funding has nothing to do with immigration enforcement. By adding immigration requirements, the DOT is stepping beyond what Congress approved those federal funds to do.

These types of disputes reflect:

• Ongoing friction between the three branches of the federal government—mainly, the president’s power to enforce the law versus Congress’s power of the purse.
• Tension between federal agencies and state/local governments over who controls public safety and other policy details.
• Increasing conflict around changes to immigration policy and enforcement during recent administrations.

Immediate Effects for States and Everyday People

If the DOT rule stands, states may have to make some tough decisions:

• Drop or delay some transportation projects because they refuse to join federal immigration enforcement.
• Use money and staff meant for fixing roads or running buses to help with ICE investigations or document checks.
• Take sides in national fights over immigration, even if those fights don’t reflect local needs.

For the traveling public, this could mean:

• More potholes, unsafe bridges, or delayed upgrades to rail and transit systems.
• Sudden shutdowns or interruptions to services people rely on every day.
• Increased risk—if funding delays lead to missed repairs and accidents.

States warn that making transportation dollars dependent on immigration action punishes ordinary people, not just elected officials.

The Lawsuit Explained: A Summary Table

A simple breakdown of both sides’ main points makes the conflict clearer:

The Significance: Larger Constitutional Questions

This new lawsuit raises big questions about how the U.S. government is structured and what powers each branch has. The heart of the fight is:

• Does the U.S. Department of Transportation have the legal right to make new immigration-related demands on how federal money for roads and bridges is given out?
• Or is that kind of power limited by what Congress said when it created and funded those transportation programs?

The answer could matter for decades—not just for roads and bridges, but for any federal program where money is handed out to states and cities. If one federal agency can make new grant requirements beyond what Congress set, others may follow, reshaping the balance between Washington, D.C. and every state in the country.

Past Disputes: Not the First of Its Kind

There have been similar lawsuits under past presidents about using federal grant money to get states to fall in line on different issues. Sometimes courts have said it is legal, especially when the funding is closely related to the policy area. Other times, they have said it is not allowed—especially when the new requirement reaches far beyond the scope of the money being handed out.

For example:

• Earlier court fights over “sanctuary city” funding focused on whether federal grant programs for police or city services could demand state cooperation with federal immigration orders.
• Courts sometimes said the federal government could make grants depend on “general law enforcement cooperation” but not require states to enforce federal immigration law directly.

It is this complicated and sometimes unsettled legal background that the current lawsuit is stepping into.

What Happens Next?

The case could follow several paths:

• The federal court might issue an order stopping the DOT from enforcing the new policy while the lawsuit goes forward.
• Both sides will present their best arguments, and judges will look at constitutional law, past court cases, and the specifics of federal grant programs.
• The final decision may come from a higher court, or even the U.S. Supreme Court, since the issues affect many states and core constitutional rights.

During the lawsuit, the future of billions of dollars for infrastructure funding hangs in the balance. States may continue their transportation projects as usual or may need to plan for possible budget gaps if they lose federal dollars.

If you want to read the official DOT position or policy details, you can visit the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Grants Programs page.

Why This Matters for Immigration Policy and Public Works

The fight is not only about the money, and not just about immigration. It is about who gets to decide tough questions for American communities:

• Can federal agencies force states to change how they handle immigration by threatening to pull money for roads and bridges?
• Should basic services and public safety projects be tied to current political fights about immigration?
• What is the right way for federal and state governments to share power over immigration policy and the use of public funds?

The answer may influence future debates about climate policy, public health, law enforcement, and any federal program that gives out grants with strings attached.

Wrapping Up: Key Takeaways

This lawsuit by 20 states against the U.S. Department of Transportation is about much more than just politics. It is a practical fight over roads, bridges, and everyday public needs, and a deeper question about how American government works when states and Washington disagree.

• The DOT’s new rule ties federal infrastructure funds to strict state action on immigration, mainly cooperation with ICE and denying licenses to people without legal status.
• States believe this violates both the U.S. Constitution and fair practice. They argue it is not up to federal agencies to create new, unrelated funding requirements—only Congress can do that.
• Both sides see high stakes: states worry about dangerous delays in critical projects, while the federal government says the rules are needed to keep the nation’s transportation system secure.

As the lawsuit moves ahead, many will be watching for how it may reshape both immigration policy and rules for how federal and state governments work together. The final decision is likely to set rules that will last far into the future, not just for infrastructure funding but wherever federal money and state policy meet.

Learn Today

Executive Overreach → When the executive branch exceeds its lawful powers, often by imposing rules or requirements without congressional approval.
Power of the Purse → The constitutional authority of Congress to allocate government spending and control how federal funds are used.
Grant Conditions → Specific requirements states must meet to receive federal funding for projects like transportation or law enforcement.
Sanctuary Cities → Local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, often to protect undocumented residents.
Coercion → Pressuring states to take certain actions by threatening to withhold essential funding or resources.

This Article in a Nutshell

Twenty states are suing the U.S. Department of Transportation over new rules tying infrastructure funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. States argue this exceeds federal authority and risks halting crucial projects. The outcome could reshape how federal money, immigration policy, and local infrastructure needs intersect in the future.
— By VisaVerge.com

Read more:

• Keir Starmer faces criticism after immigration white paper draws Enoch Powell comparisons
• Trump Revives Hardline Immigration Policies in Blitz
• South Texas Reels as Trump Immigration Policies Hit Hard
• DHS asks National Guard to help with immigration roundups across US
• Sarasota deputies begin training for immigration duties under 287(g) program