-
Original Date Announced
January 29, 2025Section 5(f)(v) of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) order, "Ensuring Reliance Upon Sound Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation Policies, Programs, and Activities," states that "[t]o the maximum extent permitted by law," DOT-funded programs and activities (including grants, loans, contracts) must prioritize projects requiring local compliance or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and other goals of the president and Secretary of Transportation.
Trump 2.0 [ID #1484]
2025.01.29 DOT Order re: Ensuring Reliance Upon Sound Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation Policies Programs and ActivitiesEffective Date
January 29, 2025Subsequent Trump and Court Action
January 31, 20252025.01.31 NYT Trump Raises New Threat to Sanctuary Cities: Blocking Transportation Dollars
DOT, which sends billions of dollars annually to states and local governments, issued an order threatening to block transportation funding to "sanctuary cities."
View DocumentSubsequent Trump and Court Action
April 24, 20252025.04.24 DOT: Follow the Law Letter to Recipients of DOT Grant Funding
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued a "Follow the Law" letter to federal transportation-funding recipients stating that they are "obligated to comply fully with all applicable Federal laws and regulations . . . including cooperating with and not impeding [ICE and DHS] in the enforcement of Federal immigration law." The letter states that lack of cooperation includes "declin[ing] to cooperate with ICE investigations," "issu[ing] driver's licenses to individuals present in the United States in violation of Federal immigration law," and "otherwise act[ing] in a manner that impedes Federal law enforcement." Additionally, DOT "expects its recipients to ensure that the Federal financial assistance they receive from DOT is provided only to subrecipients, businesses, or service providers that are U.S. Citizens or U.S. Nationals and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) or legal entities allowed to do business in the U.S. and which do not employ illegal aliens."
Failure to comply with these "legal obligations" could result in a loss of DOT funding.
View DocumentSubsequent Trump and Court Action
June 19, 20252025.06.19 Preliminary Injunction - California v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation
Judge John McConnell preliminarily enjoined DOT's conditions on federal transportation funding outlined in Secretary Duffy's April 2025 letter. Judge McConnell found that the Secretary lacked statutory authority to impose immigration-related conditions on transportation funding and that the conditions were arbitrary and capricious in their scope, failed to specify how states are supposed to cooperate with federal immigration-enforcement authorities, and violated the Spending Clause because "[t]he Government does not cite any plausible connection between cooperating with ICE enforcement and the congressionally approved purposes of the Department of Transportation." California v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation, No. 1:25-cv-00208 (D.R.I.)
**See litigation note above**
View DocumentCurrent Status
NoneOriginal Trump Policy Status
Trump Administration Action: Agency DirectiveSubject Matter: Sanctuary RestrictionsAgencies Affected: OtherAssociated or Derivative Policies
- November 15, 2017 DOJ warns 29 jurisdictions about losing Byrne JAG funds for non-compliance with § 1373
- January 20, 2025 EO 14159 § 17 directs DOJ and DHS to take civil and criminal enforcement actions against “sanctuary jurisdictions”
- January 21, 2025 DOJ Creates New "Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group"
- January 21, 2025 DOJ memo prioritizes immigration prosecutions and information sharing, threatens enforcement against state and local jurisdictions
Documents
Trump-Era Policy Documents
- New Policy
- Subsequent Action
-
Subsequent Action
Original Source:
The Secretary of Transportation: Follow the Law Letter
-
Subsequent Action
Original Source:
Preliminary Injunction - California v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation
-
Commentary
Original Source:
Spending, Coercion, and Commandeering
-
Other
Original Source:
Complaint - California v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation
To provide information, corrections, or feedback, please email IPTP.feedback@gmail.com
To provide information, corrections, or feedback, please email IPTP.feedback@gmail.com
Commentary
OneFirst Spending, Coercion, and Commandeering
Professor Steven Vladeck offers a legal analysis of the Constitution's Spending Clause in light of the DOT order
Go to article