Massachusetts

Twenty States File Lawsuit Over Federal Immigration Requirements on Law Enforcement Grants

The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined 19 other states, including the commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia, in a lawsuit pushing back against the Trump administration’s attempts to attach immigration enforcement requirements to federal grants supporting state and local…

Published

1 week ago

August 25, 2026

Randy Breland, Managing Editor

Protesters march holding signs against ICE and immigration enforcement, with a Me — federal law enforcement grants lawsuit

Last updated: September 2, 2026

Key points

A coalition of 20 states has sued the Trump administration over requirements tying federal public safety grants to immigration enforcement cooperation.
The lawsuit argues that Congress holds the exclusive constitutional power of the purse and that executive agencies cannot attach unauthorized policy conditions to funding.
The dispute puts millions of dollars in law enforcement, crime victim assistance, and juvenile justice programs at risk across participating states.

NewsWK — A coalition of 20 states has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s policy requiring state and local jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration authorities as a condition for receiving certain public safety grants. The legal action contends that the executive branch overstepped its constitutional authority by attaching immigration compliance mandates to funding streams authorized directly by Congress.

The lawsuit involves state attorneys general from across the country, including Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Virginia. At the core of the dispute is the constitutional separation of powers and whether executive agencies can withhold congressionally appropriated law enforcement funds to enforce federal civil immigration priorities.

Why it matters here

Federal law enforcement and public safety grant programs distribute more than $1 billion each year to state and municipal agencies nationwide. These funds directly finance frontline operations, including regional narcotics task forces, anti-gang initiatives, violent crime prevention, sexual assault investigations, crisis intervention teams, and juvenile recidivism programs.

Nationally, these federal appropriations support services for more than 8.5 million crime victims and provide compensation payments for upwards of 200,000 victim claims annually across more than 1,000 local government jurisdictions. When grant distributions are delayed or restricted, state and county budgets face immediate fiscal pressure to either make up the difference using local taxpayer dollars or reduce operational funding for specialized criminal justice programs.

In Wisconsin alone, state justice officials estimate the conditions place more than $6 million in criminal justice assistance at risk. The affected distributions include $3.2 million designated for general law enforcement grant assistance, $2.1 million allocated to crisis intervention initiatives, and approximately $800,000 targeted toward juvenile delinquency prevention and youth justice programs.

Separation of Powers and Legal Arguments

The plaintiffs argue that the power of the purse rests squarely with the United States Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Under established administrative law, federal departments must administer statutory grant programs according to the exact criteria enacted by legislators, rather than establishing additional executive prerequisites.

“Threatening to cut funding that supports law enforcement if states don’t agree to unlawful conditions is an abuse of the Trump administration’s authority,” said Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul. “This funding should be distributed to the states, not improperly used as a bargaining chip.”

The complaint asserts that executive agencies lack independent authority to impose extraneous policy conditions on funds allocated by Congress, maintaining that denying standard law enforcement funding could unintentionally compromise public safety initiatives in communities nationwide.

Immigration Enforcement and Local Cooperation

The clash highlights an ongoing debate over the boundaries of federalism and intergovernmental cooperation in immigration enforcement. The federal government has sought broader local assistance in identifying and detaining deportable individuals to streamline enforcement efforts and enhance public safety. Under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local law enforcement agencies can enter into formal agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to perform specific immigration officer functions.

Across the country, local policies on immigration enforcement vary significantly between jurisdictions. In Wisconsin, 20 county sheriff offices actively participate in formal 287(g) partnerships with ICE, maintaining direct lines of cooperation on custody transfers and detainer requests. Other municipal departments work with federal immigration authorities on an informal case-by-case basis during major criminal investigations.

Conversely, several metropolitan areas, including Milwaukee County, have adopted local ordinances and operational directives that restrict municipal personnel and county correctional facilities from holding individuals on civil immigration detainers unless accompanied by a judicial warrant. Officials in those jurisdictions argue such restrictions preserve trust between immigrant communities and local police, while federal enforcement officials maintain that sanctuary policies hinder federal law enforcement and prevent the removal of criminal offenders.

Precedent and Next Steps

This lawsuit follows previous legal disputes surrounding grant conditions. In a prior conflict regarding Victims of Crime Act funds totaling $1.3 billion, the administration ultimately released the appropriated monies following legal challenges brought by state coalitions.

The newly filed litigation asks the federal court to issue an injunction preventing the administration from enforcing the immigration criteria on current juvenile justice and law enforcement grant allocations. The case is expected to proceed through the federal court system, where judges will weigh the executive branch’s authority to set grant criteria against congressional spending authority and state sovereign powers.

This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by our editorial team.