Attorney General Nessel Announces Court Order Protecting Billions in Federal Emergency Services Funding

LANSING – Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has announced an important victory in a multistate lawsuit she joined against the Trump Administration over its attempt to illegally coerce states into assisting in sweeping immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold billions in federal funding for emergency preparedness and preventing and addressing terrorist attacks, mass shootings, wildfires, floods, cybersecurity threats and more.

The District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a motion for summary judgment (PDF) filed by Attorney General Nessel and 20 attorneys general in their lawsuit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In its opinion, the Court held that the agencies violated the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by conditioning federal funds from FEMA and DHS on states’ agreement to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.

“This ruling makes clear that no administration can hold appropriated federal funds hostage to advance a political agenda,” Nessel said. “Michigan residents deserve to know the public safety resources their tax dollars support will be there to protect them when disasters strike. I remain committed to ensuring our communities have access to the resources they need when it matters most.”

In February, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed DHS and its sub-agencies, including FEMA, to cease federal funding to jurisdictions that do not assist the federal government in the enforcement of federal immigration law. In March, DHS amended the terms and conditions it places on all federal funds to require recipients to certify that they will assist in enforcing federal immigration law. These sweeping new conditions would require states and state agencies to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts or lose out on billions of federal dollars that states use to protect public safety.

In the decision, the Court agreed that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act in adding the conditions because the agency engaged in a “wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary process,” failed to consider public safety consequences for the states, and made the conditions “vague and confusing...making compliance a nearly impossible-to-achieve moving target.” The court found the conditions left states to “guess at what conduct satisfies the requirements under threat of losing billions in essential funding.”

The court further held that the conditions violate the Constitution’s Spending Clause. The court rejected DHS’ argument that placing immigration-related conditions on the grant funding was appropriate simply because many of the grants are designed to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. Instead, the court determined that DHS made no serious attempt to provide a fact-based reason for its action.

In filing the lawsuit, Attorney General Nessel and the coalition argued that the immigration conditions exceed DHS’ legal authority and violate the Constitution because the programs in question were established to help states prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters, not for immigration-related purposes. The district court agreed, holding that imposing the condition on all DHS and FEMA programs, regardless of the purpose of those programs, was unlawful.

In 2024, the State of Michigan received more than $60 million in grants through DHS or its sub-agencies and nearly $257 million from FEMA for specific disasters.

The lawsuit was also joined by the attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

###