New York Attorney General Letitia James said Tuesday that New York and a coalition of states won a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over reductions to FEMA-related grant funding, sharing the update in a post on X.
James has argued the money supports national security and emergency-response efforts, and said the funding was reduced after New York declined to cooperate with the federal government’s “attacks on immigrants.” The case was brought alongside attorneys general from 10 other states and Washington, D.C.
“This is a major victory for our law enforcement and local leaders who depend on these funds to keep New Yorkers safe,” James said.
Why It Matters
James has faced heightened attention from the administration since she led a major civil fraud case against President Donald Trump during his time out of office. Earlier this year, officials charged her with federal mortgage fraud in what many viewed as retaliation.
The disputed funding has also become a flashpoint in a broader fight over whether the federal government can use grant allocations to pressure so-called sanctuary jurisdictions to assist with federal immigration enforcement.
What To Know
In a ruling issued Monday, Rhode Island U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy—an appointee of President Donald Trump—said the dispute reflected a recurring pattern: efforts by the Trump administration to link federal grant dollars to immigration enforcement. She pointed to a previous decision that barred DHS from attaching such conditions and noted that, even after that ruling, the department sent letters to the plaintiff states indicating money would be reallocated anyway.
According to the states, DHS began shifting Homeland Security Grant Program funds in September away from jurisdictions that declined to cooperate with the administration’s immigration enforcement approach. The plaintiffs said the grants were critical for law enforcement training, emergency preparedness, and counterterrorism initiatives.
The coalition included New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
James said New York experienced a $100 million reduction. She said the money supports security operations along the state’s northern border with Canada, helps protect key infrastructure such as power grids, and funds training for the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and New York City Fire Department (FDNY).
Other states described similar uses: Illinois cited support for the state’s Terrorism and Intelligence Center, while New Jersey said the funding backs cybersecurity training for state staff and broader risk-mitigation planning.
The Trump administration argued the reallocation was not arbitrary or capricious, McElroy wrote, and said DHS acted within “a zone of reasonableness” by relying on discretionary authority to revise where funds were directed. The judge countered that officials had repeatedly indicated they would not send money to sanctuary jurisdictions, despite court orders barring that approach.
McElroy criticized the administration’s actions, writing that its “wanton abuse of their role in federal grant administration is especially troubling” given DHS’s responsibility to safeguard the country. She also noted the withheld funds supported counterterrorism and law enforcement programs, including those connected to the response to this month’s deadly shooting at Brown University in Rhode Island.
“Using funding for programs like these as leverage based solely on what appear to be Defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful,” she wrote.
What People Are Saying
In a Tuesday press release, James said: “Law enforcement and local leaders throughout New York depend on these funds to keep New Yorkers safe. The administration’s attempt to play politics with these resources was illegal and put our state at risk. This decision is a significant win in our ongoing efforts to protect New Yorkers from reckless funding cuts.”
In Monday’s ruling, McElroy wrote: “It may be that Defendants have some clever explanation for how their supposedly revised formula for grant calculations happened to result in severe funding cuts to sanctuary jurisdictions—and only to sanctuary jurisdictions—without considering their sanctuary status as a factor. But because the Court’s review is limited to the administrative record that existed at the time of the Reallocation Decision…it need not indulge such sophistry.”
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to Newsweek: “For too long, FEMA’s outdated programs treated taxpayer money like a free-for-all. President Trump and Secretary Noem’s leadership, DHS has been relentless in its efforts to eliminate waste and ensure every dollar strengthens our communities. This judicial sabotage threatens the safety of our states, counties, towns, and weakens the entire nation. We will fight to restore these critical reforms and protect American lives.”
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said in a Monday press release: “I’m pleased with the court’s ruling. Congress approved this funding with the understanding that our nation is at its strongest when all Americans, regardless of where they reside, are protected from terrorist attacks, natural disasters and other life-threatening emergencies. I will continue to stand with my colleagues against the Trump administration’s illegal and dangerous attempts to coerce states into compliance with the president’s political agenda.”
What Happens Next
DHS has been ordered to distribute to the plaintiff states the money they were originally allocated earlier this year.
