New York Attorney General Letitia James Files Lawsuits Against Trump Administration Over Immigration Enforcement Funding
New York Attorney General Letitia James has escalated her long-standing legal battle with the Trump administration by filing two lawsuits challenging the administration’s policies on immigration enforcement and the allocation of federal funding. James, a vocal critic of President Trump, joined a coalition of 19 other attorneys general in bringing these actions, which accuse the administration of using federal funding as leverage to coerce states into cooperating with its immigration agenda.
The first lawsuit directly targets the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, Kristi Noem. The suit alleges that DHS has threatened to withhold critical emergency preparedness funding from states that do not align with federal immigration enforcement efforts. James argues that this constitutes an unacceptable and unconstitutional overreach of federal power, essentially holding states hostage by forcing them to choose between safeguarding their communities from natural disasters and complying with the administration’s immigration policies.
"DHS is holding states hostage by forcing them to choose between disaster preparedness and enabling the administration’s illegal and chaotic immigration agenda," James stated in a public statement. She emphasized the importance of this funding for New York, highlighting its role in protecting residents during hurricanes, floods, and other catastrophic events. "This funding is vital to keeping New Yorkers safe during hurricanes, floods, and other catastrophes. The federal government cannot weaponize disaster relief to coerce states into abandoning public safety and community trust. My office will fight to ensure all New Yorkers are protected — both from tragic disasters and from cruel and unnecessary immigration policies."
The core of the legal challenge asserts that the Trump administration is presenting states with an "impossible choice." According to James’ office, states are forced to either forfeit millions of dollars in federal funds that Congress has specifically allocated for emergency preparedness and response, or compromise their own law enforcement priorities by diverting resources to enforce federal immigration law. This forced choice, the lawsuit argues, places an undue burden on states and undermines their ability to effectively protect their citizens.
The second lawsuit focuses on the Department of Transportation (DOT) and its conditions for receiving federal funding. The attorneys general contend that these conditions jeopardize billions of dollars in federal funding that are crucial for maintaining vital public safety and reliable transportation infrastructure. These funds support projects aimed at preventing injuries and deaths from traffic accidents, protecting passengers from train collisions, and enhancing airport safety measures. The lawsuit argues that the DOT’s actions are unconstitutional and represent another attempt to coerce states into adopting the administration’s immigration policies.
The Trump administration has defended its policies, with DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin issuing a statement to Fox News Digital that strongly rejects the lawsuit’s claims. McLaughlin stated that "Cities and states who break the law and prevent us from arresting criminal illegal aliens should not receive federal funding. The President has been clear on that. Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, DHS is working to end violations of federal immigration law and remove criminal illegal aliens from American communities. Radical sanctuary politicians need to put the safety of the American people first—not criminal illegal aliens. The Trump Administration is committed to restoring the rule of law. No lawsuit, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that."
The lawsuits come at a time when the Trump administration has intensified its efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. According to the article, over 130,000 illegal immigrants have been deported since President Trump took office.
However, the article also notes that apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border have drastically decreased under the current administration. Citing data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the article reports a 93% decline in apprehensions, with the average daily number falling from 4,297 in April 2024 to just 279 in April of the current year. The total apprehensions for April this year were 8,383, compared to last year’s 129,000. CBP officials also highlighted a significant reduction in the number of illegal aliens temporarily released into the U.S., with only five releases in April compared to 68,000 during the same month last year.
Pete Flores, acting commissioner of CBP, attributed this progress to the administration’s "dramatic shift in security posture at our border." He stated that "For the first time in years, more agents are back in the field patrolling territories that CBP didn’t have the bandwidth or manpower to oversee just six months ago. But thanks to this administration’s dramatic shift in security posture at our border, we are now seeing operational control becoming a reality, and it’s only just beginning."
The lawsuits filed by Attorney General James and the other attorneys general represent a significant challenge to the Trump administration’s immigration policies and its approach to federal funding. The legal battles are expected to be lengthy and complex, with potential implications for the relationship between the federal government and the states. The outcome of these cases could have a far-reaching impact on issues ranging from immigration enforcement to disaster preparedness and the allocation of federal resources. The core question remains whether the federal government can leverage funding to compel states to adopt specific policies, particularly in areas where state and federal interests may diverge.
