Latest news with #Democrat-led
UPI
5 hours ago
- Politics
- UPI
Judge stops Trump from tying DOT funds to immigration enforcement
Secretary of U.S. Department of Transportation Sean Duffy testifies at a House committee on May 14, 2025. On Thursday, a judge issued a preliminary injunction against his directive tying department grants to states' compliance with federal immigration enforcement policies. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to make federal transportation funding contingent on state compliance with his immigration policies. In his ruling Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Providence, R.I., said not only does the Department of Transportation lack the authority to tie grant funding to immigration enforcement, but the directive also usurps Congress' power of the purse while being "arbitrary and capricious." "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 President Barack Obama appointee said in his brief ruling. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by 20 state attorneys general challenging an April 24 directive sent to all Department of Transportation funding receipts, stating they must comply with an Immigration Enforcement Condition when applying for future grants. The letter specifies that as recipients, they have "entered into legally enforceable agreements with the United States Government and are obligated to comply fully with all applicable Federal laws and regulations," particularly those relating to immigration enforcement and diversity, equity and inclusion policies. "Adherence to your legal obligations is a prerequisite for receipt of DOT financial assistance," Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's letter states. "Noncompliance with applicable Federal laws, or failure to cooperate generally with Federal authorities in the enforcement of Federal law, will jeopardize your continued receipt of Federal financial assistance from DOT and could lead to a loss of Federal funding from DOT." The 20 Democrat-led states filed their lawsuit against the directive in May, arguing the Department of Transportation has no authority to tie grants to federal civil immigration enforcement, as the two are unrelated. In his ruling, McConnell agreed with the plaintiffs. "The IEC, backed by the Duffy Directive, 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," he said. "[T]he IEC is not at all reasonably related to the transportation funding program grants." California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded the ruling while chastising Trump for "threatening to withhold critical transportation funds unless states agree to carry out his inhumane and illogical immigration agenda. "It's immoral -- and more importantly, illegal," the Democrat said. "I'm glad 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." Since returning to the White House, Trump has led a crackdown on immigration, with many of his policies being challenged in court. Late Thursday, an appeals court handed Trump a victory in the battle, permitting California National Guard troops to remain deployed on Los Angeles streets amid protests against his immigration policies. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to continue to fight what he called "President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers."
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
US court lets Trump control National Guards deployed to LA during protests
A US appeals court has allowed President Donald Trump to retain control of the National Guard troops he deployed in Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids. Earlier, a lower court judge had ruled that Trump acted illegally by activating the soldiers despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. In its decision on Thursday, the appeals court concluded that it is likely the President exercised his statutory authority lawfully in taking control of the Guard. The court also ruled that even if the federal government did not notify California's governor before taking control of the National Guard, Newsom had no authority to veto the President's order. The deployment marked the first time a president has activated a state's National Guard without the governor's consent since 1965. The ruling was issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, with two judges appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments on June 17, all three judges indicated that presidents hold broad authority under the federal law in question and that courts should exercise caution when considering intervention. The panel stated that while presidents do not have unchecked power to assume control of a state's Guard, the Trump administration had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a defensible rationale for its actions, citing violent acts by protesters. Impact of the appeals court order This case could have broader implications for presidential authority to deploy troops within the United States. Trump has already directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democrat-led cities. Newsom vs Trump: How events unfolded The case began after Trump deployed US troops, including the National Guard, to respond to protests in Los Angeles against the immigration crackdown by federal authorities. President Donald Trump, a Republican, maintained that the deployment was necessary to restore order. Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, argued that the move escalated tensions, undermined local authority, and misused resources. However, since the troop deployment, the protests appear to have subsided. The legal battle commenced when Newsom sued to block Trump's order, initially securing a ruling in his favour from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, found that Trump had exceeded his legal authority—permissible only during times of rebellion or imminent threat. 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of rebellion,' Breyer wrote. The Trump administration countered that courts should not second-guess a president's decisions, prompting the appeals court to temporarily halt Breyer's ruling. With the latest decision, control of the California National Guard remains in federal hands as the case continues.
The Advertiser
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Judge blocks Trump plan to force immigration crackdown
A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump's administration from forcing 20 Democrat-led states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in order to receive billions of dollars in transport funding. Chief US District Judge John McConnell ruled the Department of Transportation lacked the authority to make the demand, and that the condition violated the US Constitution. McConnell said the administration provided no plausible connection between cooperating with immigration enforcement and the purposes Congress intended for the funding, which is to support highways, bridges and other transportation projects. "Congress did not authorise or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes," McConnell wrote. The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction preventing such a condition from being enforced against the 20 states that sued along with their government subdivisions, like cities. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment. It has argued the policy was within the department's discretion. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general who argued the administration was seeking to unlawfully hold federal funds hostage to coerce them into adhering to the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. They sued after US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy notified states in April they could lose transportation funding if they didn't cooperate with the enforcement of federal law, including efforts to enforce immigration law. Since returning to office on January 20, Trump has signed several executive orders that have called for cutting off federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as his administration has moved to conduct mass deportations. Sanctuary jurisdictions generally have laws and policies that limit or prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement, hailed McConnell's ruling, saying Trump had been "treating these funds – funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air – as a bargaining chip." A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump's administration from forcing 20 Democrat-led states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in order to receive billions of dollars in transport funding. Chief US District Judge John McConnell ruled the Department of Transportation lacked the authority to make the demand, and that the condition violated the US Constitution. McConnell said the administration provided no plausible connection between cooperating with immigration enforcement and the purposes Congress intended for the funding, which is to support highways, bridges and other transportation projects. "Congress did not authorise or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes," McConnell wrote. The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction preventing such a condition from being enforced against the 20 states that sued along with their government subdivisions, like cities. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment. It has argued the policy was within the department's discretion. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general who argued the administration was seeking to unlawfully hold federal funds hostage to coerce them into adhering to the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. They sued after US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy notified states in April they could lose transportation funding if they didn't cooperate with the enforcement of federal law, including efforts to enforce immigration law. Since returning to office on January 20, Trump has signed several executive orders that have called for cutting off federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as his administration has moved to conduct mass deportations. Sanctuary jurisdictions generally have laws and policies that limit or prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement, hailed McConnell's ruling, saying Trump had been "treating these funds – funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air – as a bargaining chip." A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump's administration from forcing 20 Democrat-led states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in order to receive billions of dollars in transport funding. Chief US District Judge John McConnell ruled the Department of Transportation lacked the authority to make the demand, and that the condition violated the US Constitution. McConnell said the administration provided no plausible connection between cooperating with immigration enforcement and the purposes Congress intended for the funding, which is to support highways, bridges and other transportation projects. "Congress did not authorise or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes," McConnell wrote. The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction preventing such a condition from being enforced against the 20 states that sued along with their government subdivisions, like cities. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment. It has argued the policy was within the department's discretion. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general who argued the administration was seeking to unlawfully hold federal funds hostage to coerce them into adhering to the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. They sued after US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy notified states in April they could lose transportation funding if they didn't cooperate with the enforcement of federal law, including efforts to enforce immigration law. Since returning to office on January 20, Trump has signed several executive orders that have called for cutting off federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as his administration has moved to conduct mass deportations. Sanctuary jurisdictions generally have laws and policies that limit or prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement, hailed McConnell's ruling, saying Trump had been "treating these funds – funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air – as a bargaining chip." A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump's administration from forcing 20 Democrat-led states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in order to receive billions of dollars in transport funding. Chief US District Judge John McConnell ruled the Department of Transportation lacked the authority to make the demand, and that the condition violated the US Constitution. McConnell said the administration provided no plausible connection between cooperating with immigration enforcement and the purposes Congress intended for the funding, which is to support highways, bridges and other transportation projects. "Congress did not authorise or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes," McConnell wrote. The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction preventing such a condition from being enforced against the 20 states that sued along with their government subdivisions, like cities. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment. It has argued the policy was within the department's discretion. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general who argued the administration was seeking to unlawfully hold federal funds hostage to coerce them into adhering to the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. They sued after US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy notified states in April they could lose transportation funding if they didn't cooperate with the enforcement of federal law, including efforts to enforce immigration law. Since returning to office on January 20, Trump has signed several executive orders that have called for cutting off federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as his administration has moved to conduct mass deportations. Sanctuary jurisdictions generally have laws and policies that limit or prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement, hailed McConnell's ruling, saying Trump had been "treating these funds – funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air – as a bargaining chip."
Perth Now
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Judge blocks Trump plan to force immigration crackdown
A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump's administration from forcing 20 Democrat-led states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in order to receive billions of dollars in transport funding. Chief US District Judge John McConnell ruled the Department of Transportation lacked the authority to make the demand, and that the condition violated the US Constitution. McConnell said the administration provided no plausible connection between cooperating with immigration enforcement and the purposes Congress intended for the funding, which is to support highways, bridges and other transportation projects. "Congress did not authorise or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes," McConnell wrote. The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction preventing such a condition from being enforced against the 20 states that sued along with their government subdivisions, like cities. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment. It has argued the policy was within the department's discretion. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general who argued the administration was seeking to unlawfully hold federal funds hostage to coerce them into adhering to the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. They sued after US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy notified states in April they could lose transportation funding if they didn't cooperate with the enforcement of federal law, including efforts to enforce immigration law. Since returning to office on January 20, Trump has signed several executive orders that have called for cutting off federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as his administration has moved to conduct mass deportations. Sanctuary jurisdictions generally have laws and policies that limit or prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement, hailed McConnell's ruling, saying Trump had been "treating these funds – funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air – as a bargaining chip."
2 days ago
- Health
Trump administration blocked from cutting local health funding for four municipalities
A federal court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from clawing back millions in public health funding from four Democrat-led municipalities in GOP-governed states. It's the second such federal ruling to reinstate public health funding for several states. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday sought by district attorneys in Harris County, Texas, home to Houston, and three cities: Columbus, Ohio, Nashville, Tennessee, and Kansas City, Missouri. The decision means the federal government must reinstate funding to the four municipalities until the case is fully litigated. 'The federal government cannot simply ignore Congress and pull the plug on essential services that communities rely on,' Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee said. 'Today's decision ensures we can keep doing the work that protects our residents — from tracking disease outbreaks to providing vaccinations and supporting vulnerable families.' Their lawsuit, filed in late April, alleged $11 billion in cuts to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs had already been approved by Congress and are being unconstitutionally withheld. They also argued that the administration's actions violate Department of Health and Human Services regulations. The cities and counties argued the cuts were 'a massive blow to U.S. public health at a time where state and local public health departments need to address burgeoning infectious diseases and chronic illnesses, like the measles, bird flu, and mpox.' The cuts would lead to thousands of state and local public health employees being fired, the lawsuit argued. The local governments, alongside the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, wanted the court to reinstate the grants nationwide. But Cooper said in his preliminary injunction that the funds can only be blocked to the four municipalities and in a May 21 hearing expressed skepticism about whether it could apply more widely. The funding in question was granted during the COVID-19 pandemic but aimed at building up public health infrastructure overall, Menefee said in a statement in April. The four local governments were owed about $32.7 million in future grant payments, Cooper's opinion notes. The federal government's lawyers said the grants were legally cut because, "Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.' They used the same argument in the case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia over the HHS funding clawback. Menefee said the cuts defunded programs in Harris County for wastewater disease surveillance, community health workers and clinics and call centers that helped people get vaccinated. Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the cuts forced the city to fire 11 of its 22 infectious disease staffers. Nashville used some of its grant money to support programs, including a 'strike team' that after the pandemic addressed gaps in health services that kept kids from being able to enroll in school, according to the lawsuit. Kansas City used one of its grants to build out capabilities to test locally for COVID-19, influenza and measles rather than waiting for results from the county lab. The suit details that after four years of work to certify facilities and train staff, the city 'was at the final step" of buying lab equipment when the grant was canceled. Representatives for HHS, the CDC and the cities did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
