California and other democratically led states sued the Trump administration on Monday after allegedly stripping hundreds of millions of dollars in federal security and disaster relief funds, reluctantly supporting federal immigration enforcement.
The lawsuit comes days later by a federal judge in another case protecting immigrants.
Atty, California. General Rob Bonta said the latest funding cuts notified over the weekend flew in the face of last week’s ruling. He criticized it as an illegal effort to force Democrats to comply with the federal immigration campaign, which has no legal obligation to support.
“Tell me, how will refund California’s efforts to protect against counter-terrorism make our community safer?” Bonta said in a statement. “President Trump doesn’t like us not being bullied by making his bids, ignoring his right to make decisions about how law enforcement resources are used to protect our communities.”
The White House introduced questions about the lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security.
The agency has previously argued that its central mission is to protect the nation’s security from threats from illegal immigration, and therefore should be able to withhold funds from states that do not support that mission or believe it will actively undermine that mission.
The funds in question – billions of dollars a year – are distributed among states to “preparate, protect, respond and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and are distributed “evenly” by the administrations of both parties for decades, the state lawsuit alleges.
Funds approved by Congress after disasters such as September 11th and Hurricane Katrina will pay first responders pay salaries and training, testing state computer systems for vulnerability to cyberattacks, vulnerabilities among local partners, and mutual responses to emergency responses to disasters.
Bonta’s office said it had expected California to expect approximately $165 million, but was informed that it would receive a $110 million, $55 million cut or a third of that fund. Other blue states have seen even greater cuts, with Illinois seeing a 69% cut and New York saying it has received a 79% cut.
Other states that support the Trump administration’s immigration policy have seen a significant increase, with an increase of over 100%, the litigation state said.
They said the notifications did not provide justification for the reductions, and that they were only what was done under Homeland Security direction. Still, the reason was clear, they said, and they said, and there have been recent comments from Homeland Security Secretary Christie Noem and other executive authorities who have fully stated that states that do not cooperate with federal immigration policies and maintain sanctuary policies are seeing a decline in funding.
“The explanation of the final decision to redistribut the $233 million in the DHS and FEMA Homeland Security Fund – the decision to redeploy – is clear. DHS has been administering the federal grant program in a fair and even way for decades, but the current administration is taking money from the enemy,” the state wrote in the lawsuit. “Or, as Defendant Secretary Noem briefly stated in her February 19 internal memorandum, the policy she dislikes “should not receive a dollar of departmental money.” ”
The state also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to block fund cuts immediately, preventing the Federal Emergency Management Agency from paying related funds that could not be recovered later — as the incident progressed.
Last week, a federal judge ruled that administrators who set immigration-related conditions for similar emergency funds were “arbitrary and whimsical” unconstitutional.
“DHS refers to a wide range of Homeland Security Commissions to justify the terms, but grants in the Issues Fund Program, such as disaster relief, fire safety, dam safety, emergency preparedness, etc., the judge wrote in that case. “To wipe out the immigration-related conditions imposed on all DHS-controlled grants, regardless of statutory purposes, lack the necessary tailoring.”
Last month, another judge found in the third lawsuit that the Trump administration or other local jurisdictions were based on sanctuary policies.
California and other states in their lawsuit Monday claimed the Trump administration appears to be “unhindered” by last week’s ruling on funding for prior terms on immigration enforcement cooperation.
“The DHS (states) are unhappy with the initial attempt to enforce federal immigration law enforcement,” he wrote.
Bonta said the law requires that such funds be distributed based on an objective assessment of “threats and risks,” but the weekend notice showed that the Trump administration was “hurried to avoid last week’s orders” and “force and coercion” blue states in a new way.
“This is a lawless, recurring criminal administration that continues to break the law,” he said.
Bonta said the lawsuit was the 40th that his office has filed against the current Trump administration. He said his office was having a conversation with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, and they both believe that they “worthy of all the funds allocated to us.”
In Monday’s lawsuit, California was joined by Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Columbia. All were also parties to such challenging assumptions regarding funding, decided last week.
