On Wednesday, a federal judge in the island of Rhod said that the states are unconstitutional that the states need cooperation to seek financing for disaster on immigration measures, which is overseen by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
In May, the coalition of the 20 State Democratic Attorney General filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the Trump administration was threatening to stop the relief of billions of dollars from the destruction of billions of dollars unless the states agreed to some immigration implementation.
In a decision to summarize the plaintiffs and make a refusal for the federal government, US District Judge William Smith found that “competition conditions are discretion and centers” and these measures are unconstitutional because they are “forced, ambiguous, unrelated to the purpose of the federal grant.”
Smith wrote, “The plaintiffs are facing irreparable harm.
Rhod Island’s Attorney General Peter Neronhah said the decision was “winning the rule of law and has been confirmed that the president cannot elect and he cannot choose which laws he and his administration complies.”
He said, “Today’s permanent order through Judge Smith says, in uncertain terms, the administration cannot illegally allocate federal funds for emergency services like destruction of immigration and ridicule of floods.
In his complaint, the states argued that for decades they counted on federal financing for disaster preparations, responding and recovering. But he argued that the conditions presented by the Trump administration need to commit state resources for immigration enforcement, which financing the risk of risk for everything, from reducing earthquake and flood risks, from active forest fire management to everything.
The Department of Homeland Security “seeks to improve the emergency administration’s system, as long as the states promise to enforce its low criminal implementation resources, and other state agency’s resources from the federal government’s work to enforce civil immigration.”
He successfully argued that it was not only unconstitutional but also violated the administrative procedure act, a law that rules the process through which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
Smith wrote, “The terms under the APA are arbitrary and fun because the DHS failed to provide a reasonable explanation, failed to consider the interests of the states’ dependence, and left for long -term financial support.”
The government had argued that the challenge was favorable because it had already decided to exclude 12 of the 18 programs from complying with immigration requirements. For the rest of the programs, the government argued that the agreement was a dispute that should be resolved in the federal claims.
The government wrote in court documents, “Even if it was not, the Congress planned FEMA programs to address national security and terrorism concerns that rely on the cooperation that promotes the situation.” “The Congress did not release the challenged terms in the grant programs, and the plaintiffs have not made the possibility of success in relation to these programs.”
The DHS spokesman, Teresia McLAflin, said in a statement on Wednesday that the administration believes that “cities and states that break the law and prevent us from arresting criminal illegal foreigners should not get federal financing.”
“The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law,” he said.
Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights are reserved. This content cannot be published, broadcast, re -written or re -divided.
Titles
Legislation
Is interested Legislation?
Get automatic warnings for this title.
