A coalition of governors and attorneys general is suing the Trump administration, arguing that the federal government wants to strong-arm Democratic states into complying with some of its most controversial policy changes yet.
The lawsuit, filed in a Rhode Island federal court, alleges that the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are illegally withholding billions of dollars due to states for emergency funding in order to “coerce” them into enforcing its immigration policies and making last-minute changes to how they run elections.
“President Trump has little support for both his mass deportation agenda and his baseless claims of election fraud, so instead, he’s trying to bully state and local governments into adopting his preferred policies in exchange for much-needed funding,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a press release accompanying the complaint. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, both Democrats, are among the complainants. In all, 25 states and the District of Columbia are suing the two federal agencies.
The lawsuit argues that the Trump administration is pressuring states to comply with changes to immigration enforcement and election policy as conditions for receiving grant money. The grants include the Homeland Security Grant Program, a post-September 11 pool of money specifically earmarked for counterterrorism, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which states put toward responding to natural disasters and mass-casualty events.
Democratic states fight back
The coalition of Democratic states and governors argue that FEMA and DHS don’t actually have the power to make the federal grants conditional to begin with. The lawsuit cites the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that conditions for federal funds be imposed “unambiguously,” and its stipulation that any conditions be directly related to the federal funding in question.
“The agencies failed to follow required decision-making procedures, and the requirements violate the Spending Clause by coercing States through vague and ambiguous funding conditions that are entirely unrelated to the purposes of the funding programs,” Bonta’s summary of the lawsuit says.
The complainants note that one newly imposed condition for the grant money is that they abandon federally approved voting machines capable of reading QR codes, designed to make counting votes quicker and more accurate. “The Election Conditions would require the States to abandon years of work and millions of dollars of investment on a dime, all in order to obtain unrelated funding that Congress earmarked for the prevention of terrorist attacks,” the lawsuit states.
The attempt to hold back vital federal grant money is another facet of Trump’s rush to seize more federal power over elections before the U.S. midterms this fall. So far, courts have largely sided against the president and in favor of states’ long-standing autonomy when it comes to conducting elections.
“The Administration has already lost similar fights in court, and we expect this latest unlawful attempt to fail as well,” Bonta said. “Our communities deserve better than to have essential resources caught up in political games.”