by Ariana Figueroa and Ashley Murray, Arkansas Advocate
June 20, 2025

A Rhode Island federal judge blocked an order that would have yanked billions of federal dollars for roads, bridges and airport projects in states that don’t aid in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr. granted a preliminary injunction late Thursday to the 20 Democratic-led states that brought the case against the U.S. Department of Transportation as well as DOT Secretary Sean Duffy.

McConnell’s order only applies to the 20 plaintiff states, which he wrote are likely to succeed in the case because Duffy acted outside his authority when he placed new eligibility requirements on funds already allocated by Congress for a specific purpose.

“The (Immigration Enforcement Condition) backed by the Duffy Directive, is arbitrary and capricious in its scope and lacks specificity in how the States are to cooperate on immigration enforcement in exchange for Congressionally appropriated transportation dollars — grant money that the States rely on to keep their residents safely and efficiently on the road, in the sky, and on the rails,” McConnell wrote in his 10-page order.

McConnell delivered the ruling ahead of a Friday deadline for infrastructure grant funding applications.

The states that brought the suit are California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

“These unlawful attempts to weaken states’ rights and put Americans in harm’s way are being recognized as such, and I’m grateful to the Court for recognizing that we are on the right side of the law,” Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha said in a statement.

Appropriations power

McConnell seemed likely during a Wednesday hearing to block the Transportation Department’s move to withdraw billions in congressional funding.

McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2011, pressed acting U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom on how the Transportation Department could have power over funding that was approved by Congress, saying federal agencies “only have appropriations power given by Congress.”

“That’s how the Constitution works,” he said. “Where does the secretary get the power and authority to impose immigration conditions on transportation funding?”

The suit brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenges an April directive from Duffy, a former House member from Wisconsin, that requires states to cooperate in federal immigration enforcement in order to receive federal grants already approved by Congress.

“Defendents seek to hold hostage tens of billions of dollars of critical transportation funding in order to force the plaintiff states to become mere arms of the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies,” Delbert Tran of the California Department of Justice, who argued on behalf of the states, said.

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Bloom said that Duffy’s letter simply directs the states to follow federal immigration law.

McConnell said that while the states could interpret it that way, the Trump administration has gone after so-called sanctuary cities and targeted them for not taking the same aggressive immigration enforcement as the administration.

The judge said Bloom’s argument expressed a “very different” interpretation of the directive than how the administration has described it publicly. He also noted President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have “railed on … the issues that arise from sanctuary cities.”

Trump on June 15  directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to target Chicago, Los Angeles and New York — three major Democrat-led cities that have policies to not aid in immigration enforcement.

Undermines Congress

Tran said the Department of Transportation’s directive is not only arbitrary and capricious, but undermines congressional authority because Congress appropriated more than $100 billion for transportation projects to the states.

Cutting off funding would have disastrous consequences, the states have argued.

“More cars, planes, and trains will crash, and more people will die as a result, if Defendants cut off federal funding to Plaintiff States,” according to the brief from the states.

Bloom defended Duffy’s letter, saying it listed actions that would impede federal law enforcement and justified withholding of funds because “such actions compromise the safety and security of the transportation systems supported by DOT financial assistance.”

McConnell said that didn’t answer his question about the secretary’s authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funding.

“It seems to me that the secretary is saying that a failure to comply with immigration conditions is relevant to the safety and security of the transportation system,” Bloom said.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

The post Judge halts Trump order tying state transportation grants to immigration actions appeared first on arkansasadvocate.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article leans slightly toward a Center-Left perspective by framing the Trump administration’s directive to withhold federal transportation funds as an overreach of executive authority that undermines congressional appropriations and state rights. It emphasizes the legal challenge mounted by Democratic-led states and includes critical language about the administration’s approach to sanctuary cities and immigration enforcement. The coverage highlights concerns about public safety and the potential negative impact on infrastructure funding, aligning with Democratic viewpoints on immigration and federalism. However, it maintains a largely factual tone by quoting both sides and focusing on judicial reasoning, avoiding overt partisan language.