Judge Blocks Trump’s Immigration Funding Rule Targeting Sanctuary States

A U.S. federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from tying transportation funding to immigration enforcement compliance. On Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island ruled that the U.S. Department of Transportation lacked legal authority to demand cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a condition for federal transportation grants.

The decision came after 20 Democratic-led states sued the administration, arguing that the policy unlawfully pressured them to align with Trump’s hardline immigration agenda. These states, along with their cities and counties, opposed the April 24 directive by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, which threatened to withhold funding unless local governments assisted federal immigration officers.

Judge McConnell, an Obama appointee, issued a preliminary injunction, emphasizing that there was no legitimate connection between immigration cooperation and the congressional purpose of the grants—namely, infrastructure development like highways and bridges. He wrote that Congress did not give the Transportation Secretary the authority to impose such immigration-related conditions.

Since returning to office on January 20, Trump had signed multiple executive orders aimed at penalizing sanctuary jurisdictions—areas that limit cooperation with ICE—by cutting off federal funds. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal pushback against these executive actions.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the ruling, calling it a win for state rights and infrastructure development. “Trump was using transportation funds as leverage to force compliance with his immigration policies,” Bonta said.

The 20 states are also pursuing a related case challenging similar restrictions imposed by the Department of Homeland Security on other federal grant programs.

This ruling reinforces legal limits on federal power to coerce states on immigration enforcement and underscores the ongoing legal clash between sanctuary policies and federal mandates.