Attorney General William Tong has joined 12 other attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration over a recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding announcement from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that will cut funds to certain states, including Connecticut, that do not comply with the president’s immigration policies.

Over the weekend, DHS announced the allocation of $3.5 billion in funding for a number of FEMA’s Homeland Security Grant Programs. Funding for 12 Democrat-led states, including Connecticut, was cut nearly in half.

In July, FEMA announced nearly $460 million was available to the coalition of states through the grant program. But on September 27, DHS awarded only $226 million, a move Tong and the other attorney generals are arguing was politically motivated.

Some states saw significant cuts in their funding levels. Illinois’ funding was cut by 69 percent and New York’s was cut by 79 percent. While Connecticut’s funding remained flat from the previous funding period, Elizabeth Benton, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, told Inside Investigator that there were “added arbitrary conditions on when the funds must be spent.” In total, eight of the 12 states in the coalition had their funding cut.

The funding decision reduced the grant’s performance period from three years to one, which the lawsuit argues harms states because their project proposals were based on a three-year spending period.

The coalition of states, which also includes Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York, filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island’s federal district court on September 29, alleging there was no reason behind the funding cuts, which simply said funds had been “[a]djusted per DHS directive.”

The lawsuit protests the unequal allocation of the funds: increasing funding to states it alleges are friendlier to the administration’s immigration policies and cutting funding to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions. It alleges this is a violation of the Homeland Security Act, which requires funds to be allocated based on “objective, risk-based criteria,” and that it violates the “principle of equal sovereignty” in the Constitution.

It also argues that shrinking the performance period violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

In January, on his first day after being sworn into office, Trump issued an executive order directing DHS to “ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions” don’t receive federal funds.

In May, the Trump administration placed Connecticut, as well as six towns across the state, on a list of s0-called ‘sanctuary jurisdictions,’ presumably because of the Trust Act, which led to a back and forth between Gov. Ned Lamont and federal attorney general Pam Bondi and a rebuke of the label from local and state officials.

Tong previously joined a lawsuit by the same coalition of states objecting to a February directive by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to stop sending federal funds to jurisdictions not assisting the federal government in its immigration enforcement activities.

A federal court ruled DHS official’s attempt to tie federal funds to immigration enforcement violated the Constitution’s spending clause, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling found DHS did not try to articulate a fact-based rationale behind the decision to tie funding to immigration enforcement and that this resulted in “vague and confusing language” that made it impossible for states to comply.

That decision came just days before DHS announced the Homeland Security Grant Program allocation, a move the coalition’s latest lawsuit suggests may have motivated the funding announcement.

“Two days ago, frustrated in its first attempt to coerce Plaintiff States into enforcing federal civil immigration law, DHS took yet another lawless action. It simply cut many Plaintiff States’ awards dramatically, without explanation, re-allocating their funds to more favored jurisdictions.” the latest lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit is asking not only that the funding decision be declared unconstitutional and set aside, but that the funds be awarded either in accordance with statutory criteria or the earlier fund availability first announced by DHS.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.