Judge rules against FEMA coercion in immigration grant terms

(RHODE ISLAND, UNITED STATES) A federal judge in Rhode Island has struck down federal efforts to tie disaster and homeland security grants to state cooperation with immigration enforcement, calling the approach “bully” tactics and ordering the agencies to stop. In a series of rulings issued in late September and early October 2025, U.S. District Judge William Smith said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acted unlawfully when they conditioned funding on states’ willingness to assist federal immigration authorities. The decisions immediately restore access to billions in federal funds that had been threatened for states with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Judge Smith found the policy—crafted under President Trump and carried out through executive action and internal DHS memoranda earlier this year—violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause. He described the approach as a “ham-handed attempt to bully the states” into making promises they did not have to make, warning that the conditions were “coercive,” “hopelessly vague,” and “unlawfully ambiguous.” The court held that FEMA and DHS could not demand state certification of participation in joint operations or access to detainees as a price for emergency preparedness, disaster relief, and homeland security grants.

The judge also reprimanded federal officials for ignoring a prior court order that had barred these conditions. After the first order, the administration issued new grant award letters with nearly identical requirements. Judge Smith said the new letters still violated the court’s instructions and ordered the agencies to amend them within seven days. The court entered a permanent injunction blocking FEMA and DHS from enforcing immigration-related conditions on grant funding.

DHS and FEMA have condemned the rulings, labeling them “activist” and warning they would undermine national security. Despite those objections, the orders remain in effect as of mid-October 2025. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the decisions reinforce a legal line that federal agencies cannot cross: they may not use unrelated grant programs to force states to help carry out immigration enforcement.

Court rulings and key orders

• On September 24, 2025, Judge Smith found that DHS and FEMA violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by linking grant eligibility to immigration enforcement cooperation. The ruling said the agencies had exceeded their authority by turning disaster and homeland security funds into leverage for a separate policy goal.

• On October 1, 2025, Judge Mary McElroy of the same court issued a temporary restraining order halting the reallocation of $233 million in disaster funds tied to the contested conditions. Her order required DHS to rescind grant awards that attempted to enforce the immigration cooperation requirements.

• On October 14, 2025, Judge Smith ruled that the administration’s revised grant letters still violated the earlier orders. He again criticized the approach as “bully” tactics and directed FEMA and DHS to correct their award letters immediately.

The combined effect of these decisions is clear: states cannot be forced to choose between their own laws and access to critical federal disaster and homeland security funds.

“The federal government may not coerce states into assisting with immigration enforcement by threatening to cut off unrelated funding streams,” the court wrote, stressing that the conditions were designed to “bully the states into making promises they have no obligation to make at the risk of losing critical disaster and homeland security funding.”

The rulings emphasize that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and that Congress did not authorize FEMA or DHS to tie core safety grants to state participation in immigration operations.

Implications for states, emergency managers, and policy

These decisions have immediate and practical consequences:

• They safeguard billions in grants that help states prepare for hurricanes, wildfires, and other emergencies and support homeland security functions.
• They are especially important for states with sanctuary policies, which limit local involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
• Under the blocked policy, such states would have faced losses in emergency preparedness and disaster relief funds unless they agreed to certify cooperation—including participation in joint operations and access to detainees.

A coalition of more than 20 state attorneys general had sued to stop the policy earlier this year, arguing that FEMA and DHS were forcing states to pick between their own laws and the money needed to protect residents. The court agreed, saying the federal government crossed constitutional boundaries by attaching immigration conditions to grants meant to help states serve the public during crises.

Practical takeaways for local officials

1. FEMA and DHS cannot withhold or reallocate disaster and homeland security funds based on whether a state or city helps with immigration enforcement.
2. Grant award letters must be amended to remove immigration-cooperation conditions.
3. The court’s permanent injunction blocks the agencies from trying the same theory again while the orders remain in place.

The court also found that the agencies’ process violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that the conditions ran afoul of the Spending Clause. Agencies cannot change the purpose of these grants or impose vague, sweeping demands that pressure states to take part in immigration enforcement.

Limits on executive power and federal-state balance

• The policy originated through executive action, not new legislation from Congress.
• The court’s orders signal that agencies cannot add conditions that Congress did not approve—particularly when conditions are broad, unclear, or tied to a separate policy goal like immigration enforcement.
• Judge Smith’s opinions underline that states cannot be coerced by the threat of losing disaster aid.

While DHS and FEMA continue to call the rulings “activist,” the orders currently govern practice. States that had paused planning or spending due to the grant conditions can now move ahead. The court’s timeline—requiring corrected award letters within seven days—was designed to reduce disruption and keep disaster and homeland security programs on track as peak storm and wildfire seasons continue.

For readers seeking official reference materials on how these programs normally operate, FEMA’s grants overview is available at the exact link below:
– FEMA Grants

This case also reflects ongoing friction between federal and state roles on immigration. States can set their own rules on how much they help federal agents, but the federal government runs immigration enforcement. The rulings keep that balance by blocking FEMA and DHS from using grants to pressure states into deeper cooperation. In plain terms, the court said the federal government cannot use disaster money to push state immigration policy.

Current status (as of October 15, 2025)

• The court’s injunctions remain in force.
• The administration’s attempt to link FEMA grant eligibility to immigration enforcement cooperation has been rejected as unconstitutional.
• The judges’ orders restore access to funds, end the use of what the court called bully tactics, and make clear that disaster and homeland security grants cannot be used to compel state action on immigration.