Judge blocks Trump administration from tying transportation funds to states' cooperation with immigration efforts
A federal judge in Rhode Island blocked the Trump administration from using states' cooperation with immigration efforts as a condition for receiving transportation funds.
US District Judge John McConnell granted a preliminary injunction to 20 mostly Democratic-led states that filed a lawsuit last month to prevent the Department of Transportation from cutting off billions of dollars in funding if the states refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement.
In his Thursday ruling, McConnell, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, said, 'Congress did not authorize or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes.'
The ruling is the latest legal setback for President Donald Trump's administration. Many state attorneys general have sued over issues ranging from the president's bid to end birthright citizenship to his tariff policies.
The president has used federal funding as leverage amid policy disagreements with different states and organizations. He threatened to withhold funds from California over a transgender athlete's participation in a sporting event and to cut off $3 billion in federal grant funding for Harvard University over its handling of anti-Israel protests.
In his ruling, McConnell wrote that the immigration-enforcement condition on the funding 'is arbitrary and capricious in its scope and lacks specificity in how the States are to cooperate on immigration enforcement in exchange for Congressionally appropriated transportation dollars–grant money that the States rely on to keep their residents safely and efficiently on the road, in the sky, and on the rails.'
CNN has reached out to the Department of Transportation for comment. Earlier this week, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy wrote in a social media post that the department 'will NOT fund rogue state actors who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.'
The lawsuit was brought by California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
California's Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the court's decision and criticized Trump for using funds 'as a bargaining chip.'
'It's immoral – and more importantly, illegal. I'm glad to see the District Court agrees, blocking the President's latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution and coerce state and local governments into doing his bidding while we continue to make our case in court,' Bonta said in a statement on Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israeli forces recover bodies of three hostages from Gaza
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli forces have recovered the bodies of three hostages which had been held in the Gaza Strip since the Palestinian militant group Hamas' 2023 attack, the military and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. The hostages were identified as civilians Ofra Keidar and Yonatan Samerano, and soldier Shay Levinson. All were killed on the day of the attack, on October 7, 2023, the military said. With their retrieval, 50 hostages now remain in Gaza, only 20 of whom are believed to be alive. The abduction of Samerano, 21 at the time of his death, by a man later identified by Israeli officials as a worker at the U.N.'s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, was caught on CCTV. Around 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage during the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel, according to Israeli authorities. The subsequent Israeli campaign against Hamas in Gaza has since killed more than 55,000 Palestinians, according to health authorities in the Hamas-run strip, displaced almost the entire 2.3 million population, plunged the enclave into humanitarian crisis and left much of the territory in ruins.
Chicago Tribune
20 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: U.S. bombs fall in Iran
Saturday evening, President Donald Trump announced on social media that the U.S. had dropped 'a full payload of bombs' on Iran's most important nuclear site, Fordow, as well as completing strikes on Natanz and Isfahan. The stunning action, which came sooner than even close observers anticipated and is without obvious precedent, embroiled the U.S., for better or worse, in the middle of the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Saturday June 22 turned out to be a historic day with likely far-reaching consequences for the Middle East. Consider: An American attack unfolded inside Iran. Many Americans were unnerved by the President's action and understandably so, given the likelihood of an Iranian response, as we write yet unknown. What should be made of Trump's action? We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy, always preferable to war. His 'two-week' deadline appears to have been a ruse and we prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress. Our qualms do not mean we believe that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's oppressive and theocratic Iranian regime, which has fought proxy wars by propping up the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, should be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Nobody wants that to happen, beginning with Israel, of course, but including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and, well, every nation where rational people dominate public discourse. How close the Iran regime really is to building a nuclear weapon is contested. Those of us with long memories can remember Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear bomb as far back as 1996. More than 20 years ago, Netanyahu was again saying that Iran was very close to building a bomb that could reach the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. All this time, Iran has kept insisting its nuclear program is only for peaceful, civilian purposes. On the other hand, nuclear watchdogs also have consistently raised concerns about the growth of Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and Khamenei's regime has not exactly been a model of cooperation. Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said, 'is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60 percent.' That does not constitute evidence of a plan to build a bomb in and of itself, but the higher the level of enrichment, the closer the uranium gets to 90% weapons grade, and Iran's enrichment level is widely viewed by experts as a significant step closer to weapons grade. For the average American, the truth is not easy to discern even from our own officials. Take U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony to Congress this past March. On the one hand, she said the view of the intelligence community was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' On the other, she also said Iran was suddenly talking a lot more about nuclear weapons. That might sound vague, but it's actually highly significant, given the regime's hatred of Israel and the battles with the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. It's likely that the intra-Iranian discourse has shifted in the light of Israeli aggression. As one of the attendees at the American Nuclear Society's conference in Chicago this past week told us, there likely are those within the Iranian program who are more than interested in building a nuclear bomb to protect the regime, even if the majority are scientists interested only in peaceful, civilian uses and either ambivalent or silently hostile toward Khamenei. The question that does not get enough attention is the balance of power. Some in the latter category, she told us, already have been killed by Israel, much to their colleagues' regret. Some of those in the former category who are still alive thus are most likely newly emboldened. At the time of writing, it was unclear how much Saturday night changed that equation. No doubt there are Iranian voices speaking in favor of a major response. One can only hope other voices are arguing for caution, not least for the people of Iraq who awoke in fear Sunday morning. In terms of realpolitik, of course, Israel most wants regime change in Iran. So does the vast majority of the Iranian diaspora, including some we know in Chicago. So does the vast majority of the Iranian people, given Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with brutal violence, his funding of terror, his denouncement of opposing voices. And that's only the start of the list. This is not a regime worth defending, and recent progressive attempts to link the situation in Iran with the war in Iraq, ostensibly fought over weapons of mass destruction that did not prove to exist at scale, are illogical. This time around, the question in Iran is more about intent, not the existence or otherwise of weapons. And people's intent can change as circumstances change. What is worth debating is whether the Israeli attacks will make the end of the Khamenei regime more likely. You could argue the events of the last several days are weakening Khamenei. You could also argue that spring does not arrive when the sky is full of bombs and people are fleeing Tehran as fast as humanly possible. So where should you stand? Not with the MAGA isolationists, certainly, who claim that none of this has anything to do with this country, a view widely assumed to be cleaving the MAGA movement in two, which is no bad thing in our view. That's not to say the likes of Tucker Carlson are wrong about the potential costs of a war with Iraq; all wars extract their price and too little stateside attention is being paid in our view to the danger of nuclear contamination, which is rightly front of mind in the Persian Gulf States, even though those states are no fans of the Iranian regime and want it gone. But the horse bolted decades ago when it comes to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. But we also don't recommending standing with those far leftists who view Iran as benign, its hatred of Israel as overblown and who overlook Khamenei's human rights abuses to fit some anti-capitalist narrative. When you see the extremes of American political discourse getting into bed together, that's a great moment to leave the bedroom. What has changed the most, of course, is that the Oct. 7 attacks changed the Israeli mindset vis-a-vis Iran, and that Netanyahu calculated that the Trump administration would be more supportive of the kind of systemic change in the region that Israel now sees as crucial to its security. He was not wrong. Trump, we all know by now, is a born improviser, which can be dangerous in situations like these. Some would argue his application of force was necessary if we want to get Iran to halt its nuclear activities. The other view is that actually dropping some massive bomb deep down into the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo will not be worth the cost. Adding to the complexity, arguably the redundancy, of that question is the reality that Israel was not going to stop, whatever the U.S. did or did not do in its support. One hopeful interpretation is that the U.S. action ends with this move against the nuclear facilities and that the talking now starts again. This weekend, though, there is reason to worry about the Iranian people, most of whom long for a deal wherein Khamenei and his crew hop a plane and set the Iranian people free. In his social media post, Trump said this was the time for peace. May he be good for his word.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Barabak: Newsom stood tall against Trump. Does that make him presidential timber?
Today we discuss presidential politics, window treatments and disasters of the natural and man-made variety. Time for Gavin Newsom to start measuring those White House drapes. Huh? You know, president of the United States. I'm thinking something Earth-friendly, like recycled hemp. Wait, what? Did you catch the nationally televised speech the governor recently gave? The one about "democracy at a crossroads." I did. It was a fine speech and the governor made some important points about President Trump's reckless commandeering of California's National Guard, his administration's indiscriminate immigration raids and the wholly unnecessary dispatch of Marines to Los Angeles. (From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Venice Beach.) Newsom was plenty justified in his anger and contempt. Trump, acting true to his flame-fanning fashion, turned what was a middling set of protests — nothing local law enforcement couldn't handle — into yet another assault on our sorely tested Constitution. Newsom's speech certainly "met the moment," to use one of his favorite phrases. I'll grant you that. Unlike a lot of extracurricular activities aimed at boosting his presidential prospects, Newsom was addressing a Trump-manufactured crisis unfolding right here at home. It was a moment that called for gubernatorial leadership. Just the kind of leadership despondent Democrats need. So it's been said. It's not much of a leap to see Newsom leading the anti-Trump opposition clear to the White House! Actually, that's a bigger leap than it takes to clear the Grand Canyon. Read more: Barabak: Putting the bully in bully pulpit, Trump escalates in L.A. rather than seeking calm Granted, Newsom's speech received a lot of raves from Democrats across the country. Many are desperate for someone in a position of power to give voice to their blood-boiling, cranium-exploding rage against Trump and his many excesses. Newsom did a good job channeling those emotions and articulating the dangers of an imprudent president run amok. But let's not go overboard. There is no lack of Democrats eager to take on Trump and become the face of the so-called resistance. There is no shortage of Democrats eyeing a 2028 bid for the White House. Those who run won't be schlepping all the political baggage that Newsom has to tote. Such as? Rampant homelessness. An exploding budget deficit. Vast income inequality. Plus, a lot of social policies that many Californians consider beneficent and broad-minded that, to put it mildly, others around the country consider much less so. Don't get me wrong. I love California with all my heart and soul. But we have a lot of deep-seated problems and cultural idiosyncrasies that Newsom's rivals — Democrat and Republican — would be only too happy to hang around his neck. So let's not get too caught up in the moment. The fundamentals of the 2028 presidential race haven't changed based on a single — albeit well-received — speech. It's still hard to see Democrats turning the party's fate over to yet another nominee spawned in the liberal stew of San Francisco politics and campaigning with kooky California as a home address. Stranger things have happened. True. That said, 2028 is a zillion political light years and countless news cycles away. First come the midterm elections in November 2026, giving voters their chance to weigh in on Trump and his actions. The verdict will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in 2028. Well at least Newsom has brought his A-game to social media. His trolling of Trump is something to behold! Whatever. Read more: Lopez: My theory for why Trump's agents targeted Dodger Stadium and a bus stop outside Winchell's You're not impressed? I think it's best to leave the snark to professionals. I do, however, have some sympathy for the governor. It's not easy dealing with someone as spiteful and amoral as the nation's ax-grinder-in-chief. Consider, for instance, the disaster relief money that fire-devastated Southern California is counting on. Helping the region in its time of desperate need shouldn't be remotely political, or part of some red-vs.-blue-state feud. Historically, that sort of federal aid has never been. But this is Trump we're dealing with. To his credit, Newsom tried making nice in the days and weeks following the January firestorm. He ignored the president's provocations and held what was later described an an amicable session with Trump in the Oval Office. Their working relationship seemed to be a good one. Read more: Barabak: If Gavin Newsom wants to be president, he's got work to do — starting at home But few things last with the transactional Trump, save for his pettiness and self-absorption. Asked last week if his "recent dust-ups" with Newsom would impact the granting of wildfire relief, Trump said, "Yeah, maybe." He called Newsom incompetent, trotted out more gobbledygook about raking forests and then soliloquized on the nature of personal relationships. "When you don't like somebody, don't respect somebody, it's harder for that person to get money if you're on top," Trump said. Yeesh. Responding in a posting on X, Newsom correctly noted, "Sucking up to the President should not be a requirement for him to do the right thing for the American people." Hard to argue with that. Yet here we are. The nation's second-most populous city is occupied by National Guard and Marine troops. Thousands of people — displaced by disaster, their past lives gone up in smoke — are hostage to the whims of a peevish president who always puts his feelings first and cares nothing for the greater good. The midterm election can't come soon enough. Get the latest from Mark Z. BarabakFocusing on politics out West, from the Golden Gate to the U.S. me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
