<>
A coalition of 24 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Thursday, challenging a federal directive that conditions billions of dollars in emergency and natural disaster aid on states sharing voter registration rolls and cooperating with immigration enforcement.
The Lawsuit and Core Allegations
According to Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, who is leading the multi-state coalition alongside Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, the administration is illegally withholding essential public safety funds. In a public statement, Neronha stated that the administration is using the safety of Americans as a bargaining chip to force states to alter voting laws and immigration policies.
The plaintiffs assert that Congress designated these funds specifically for emergency preparedness, disaster response, and counterterrorism efforts. The lawsuit argues that the executive branch lacks the legal authority to place immigration and voting conditions on these congressional allocations. Neronha maintained that federal emergency funds cannot be held hostage to compel states to comply with executive branch mandates.
Voting System Mandates and Immigration Enforcement
Furthermore, the directives authorize DHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to withhold 20 percent of state anti-terrorism funding if states refuse to overhaul their election laws.
To avoid losing that fifth of their funding, states would be required to:
- Transition to paper ballot systems.
- Conduct mandatory manual audits of 5% of voting systems.
- Cross-reference voter data using undisclosed DHS methodologies.
- Utilize the DHS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to verify the citizenship of all election workers and registered voters.
The lawsuit notes that the policy also grants FEMA the authority to terminate any grant program for any reason. Plaintiffs point out that a federal district judge suspended similar conditions last year after ruling them illegal.
Impact on National Security Grants
The dispute involves billions of dollars, including over $1 billion from the National Security Grant Program. States rely on these resources to secure infrastructure against cyberattacks, terrorism, and other crimes.
The coalition of plaintiffs includes the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
State Leadership Response
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro released a statement via social media condemning the administration’s actions. Shapiro accused the administration of actively threatening community safety and depriving law enforcement of resources in an attempt to seize control of state election systems.
Shapiro stated that withholding these funds to control elections crosses a severe line, emphasizing that Pennsylvania residents deserve leaders who protect both their safety and their voting rights.
Worth a look