Santa Monica Leads Challenge to Disaster-Prep Funding Tied to Immigration Enforcement

(SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA) Santa Monica has joined a fast-growing legal fight against federal rules that tie disaster preparedness and emergency relief funds to cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The city is a named plaintiff in the lawsuit County of Santa Clara et al. v. Noem et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alongside Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and other local governments. The coalition is asking the court to block conditions that they say pressure cities to assist with federal immigration enforcement in order to keep emergency management money flowing to their communities.

At the center of the case is a challenge to a policy that the plaintiffs link to the Trump administration’s approach to linking funding and immigration cooperation. The complaint argues that conditioning federal disaster preparedness and relief grants on immigration-related cooperation oversteps federal authority. According to the filing, the conditions violate the Tenth Amendment, the Spending Clause, and separation-of-powers principles by forcing local governments to act as extensions of federal immigration enforcement in exchange for funds Congress earmarked for emergency preparedness.

City officials say the stakes are especially high for a coastal community like Santa Monica, where earthquakes, fires, and severe storms are no longer abstract risks. Emergency managers rely on stable funding to train responders, run community drills, strengthen shelters, and protect vulnerable residents. When those dollars are tied to immigration enforcement demands, the city argues, local leaders face a choice between public safety planning and policies designed for federal immigration agencies.

The case, filed under No. 3:25-cv-08330, remains active. As of September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court paused a temporary restraining order that had limited certain ICE practices, but did not end the underlying lawsuit. The next major hearing is set for September 24, 2025, when the district court will consider a request for a preliminary injunction to stop the new funding conditions while the case proceeds. The coalition, which includes Santa Monica, continues to press for both declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the federal government from enforcing the contested rules.

Policy at Issue and Santa Monica’s Legal Claims

The suit argues that federal officials cannot force local jurisdictions to enforce federal immigration law as a condition for receiving Congress-approved disaster preparedness funds. Plaintiffs say that approach:

• Coerces local governments, disrupting local control.
• Blurs the lines between federal and local roles.
• Allows executive-branch conditions to override or sidestep laws passed by Congress.

Santa Monica’s position is straightforward: emergency management resources should be based on public safety needs, not on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. City leaders say tying grants to immigration cooperation upends local policies that focus on building trust with residents who may fear engaging with government, especially during emergencies.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to:

1. Bar federal officials from attaching immigration conditions to emergency management programs.
2. Restore a clear separation between disaster funding decisions and immigration enforcement demands.

The coalition cites earlier cases where courts generally found the federal government may not compel state and local agencies to carry out federal immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold separate funding streams. While outcomes depend on specific facts, plaintiffs say the new disaster funding conditions repeat the same constitutional overreach.

Procedural Status and What Comes Next

Key procedural points:

• The Supreme Court’s stay of the temporary restraining order narrowed short-term limits on certain ICE enforcement tactics, but it did not rule on the merits of the funding conditions.
• The stay did not remove Santa Monica or other plaintiffs from the case.
• A hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction is set for September 24, 2025.

Possible paths forward:

1. If the district court grants the preliminary injunction:
   • The federal government could be barred from applying the new conditions while litigation continues.
2. If the court denies the request:
   • Plaintiffs would press their claims through later stages, and appeals could follow.

Near-term consequences for residents hinge on whether funds for earthquake training, wildfire readiness, evacuation planning, and community outreach arrive on time and without new conditions.

Programs and Practical Impacts

For context, the Federal Emergency Management Agency administers preparedness grants that support planning, training, equipment, and exercises across the United States. Readers can review program basics at the official FEMA Preparedness Grants page.

Practical implications highlighted by Santa Monica and partners:

• Cities typically build disaster preparedness budgets months in advance.
• If grants depend on shifting immigration conditions, applicants may struggle to:
  • Set training schedules
  • Hire staff
  • Purchase equipment on time
• Smaller departments that rely on steady federal support may see readiness decline due to uncertainty.

“Trust in first responders is essential to move people to safety, reunite families, and keep neighborhoods calm under stress,” city officials say. Adding immigration enforcement conditions to emergency funds risks sending mixed messages during a crisis, when seconds count.

Broader Stakes and Competing Views

Analysts note the case could influence how future administrations attach policy demands to unrelated grants.

• A ruling for the plaintiffs could reinforce limits on federal conditions.
• A ruling for the federal government could invite more attempts to tie local policies to funding, especially in public-safety areas.

Supporters of the challenged policy argue closer alignment between local agencies and federal immigration enforcement improves overall law and order. Opponents counter that immigration enforcement should remain a federal task and that local disaster preparedness should not become a lever for immigration policy.

Santa Monica’s filing reflects this divide: the city is not seeking to set federal immigration priorities. Instead, it asks the court to keep federal emergency funds focused on disaster readiness.

What This Means for Residents

• The coalition’s core claim remains: disaster preparedness funds should not be contingent on local participation in federal immigration enforcement.
• The temporary restraining order has been stayed, and the court will consider whether to issue a preliminary injunction.
• The outcome will affect budgets, training calendars, and public trust heading into the next wildfire season and beyond.

As hearings continue, residents and local organizations will watch for court orders that clarify what conditions, if any, apply to upcoming grant cycles. For Santa Monica, the immediate, practical question is whether the city will be able to plan and pay for emergency readiness without compromising its stance on immigration enforcement.