Original Date Announced

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem approved a recommendation memo by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared in response to Secretary Noem's February 19, 2025, memo, "Restricting Grant Funding for Sanctuary Jurisdictions" that directed FEMA and other DHS components to review their financial assistance awards to determine if DHS is funding "sanctuary jurisdictions" as defined by ICE and, if so, to cease that funding. The FEMA memo recommends applying sanctuary jurisdiction restrictions to open and future awards for 12 FEMA programs. It recommends that restrictions do not apply to disaster grants, non-disaster mitigation grants, and grants to fire departments and the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System.

The memo proposes dividing FEMA grant programs into two "risk profiles" to determine whether sanctuary jurisdictions restrictions should apply:

1. Grants that "should move forward without additional review" because they do not go to sanctuary jurisdictions; are disaster or non-disaster mitigation grants; are non-disaster grants with "no nexus to immigration activities, law enforcement, or national security"; or are limited by statute.
2. Grants that "require additional review by DHS" because they go to a "designated sanctuary jurisdiction", or are non-disaster grants and either "have a nexus to immigration activities, law enforcement, or national security" or are limited by statute.

The memo further divides FEMA grant programs into "risk profiles" based on the likelihood that the grants will both go to non-governmental organizations and "touch on immigration in any way." Grants with a low likelihood will move forward without additional review; grants with indeterminate likelihood will be subject to additional review by FEMA with concurrence by DHS; and grants with a high likelihood will be subject to additional review by DHS.

Based on these criteria, FEMA recommends terminating more than $980 million of its own programming and recommends additional DHS review of almost $4 billion in FEMA programming. The grants recommended for termination provide services to noncitizens in removal proceedings; emergency food and shelter to noncitizens encountered by DHS; and funds to non-federal entities that shelter noncitizens released from DHS custody.

Trump 2.0 [ID #2001]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.04.18 FY 2025 DHS Standard Terms and Conditions

DHS published a document listing the standard terms and conditions that apply to all new federal awards of financial assistance for which the award date occurs in fiscal year 2025.

Section IX requires that all funding recipients "coordinat[e] and cooperat[e]" with DHS by:

• Not restricting information sharing by state and local government entities with DHS regarding the "citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."
• Complying with prohibitions on "encouraging or inducing an alien to come to, enter, or reside" in the U.S. and on "harboring, concealing, or shielding from detection illegal aliens".
• Honoring requests for cooperation with DHS, such as "participation in joint operations, sharing of information, or requests for short term detention" of a noncitizens pursuant to a detainer.
• Providing DHS access to detainees, "such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien".
• Not "leak[ing] or otherwise publiciz[ing] the existence of an immigration enforcement operation."

Section XVII requires that grant recipients certify that they will not operate any program that advances or promotes "diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility" or "discriminatory equity ideology", that "benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration," or that "engage in . . . a discriminatory prohibited boycott" of Israeli companies or companies doing business in Israel.

Recipients that violate these provisions may have their grants terminated at the discretion of DHS.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.05.13 Complaint - Illinois v. FEMA

Twenty states filed suit against FEMA to challenge the agency's "grant funding hostage scheme" that conditions funding on compliance with the FY 2025 DHS Standard Terms and Conditions (see description above) that compel states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and stop operating any program that “benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration.” The states allege that the agency's actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and exceed the authority granted to the agency by Congress. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and ask the court to compel the government to issue new funding notices that do not include the challenged terms and conditions.

On July 2, 2025, the states filed an amended complaint in response to language DHS added to its website stating that “[n]ot all of DHS’s Standard Terms and Conditions apply to every DHS grant program". The states allege that despite this language, the Standard Terms and Conditions document itself still states that the terms “apply to all new federal awards of federal financial assistance." Illinois v. FEMA, 1:25-cv-00206, (D.R.I.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.24 Permanent Injunction - Illinois v. FEMA

Judge William E. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the plaintiff states' motion for summary judgment in their suit challenging FEMA's attempt to condition grant funding on compliance with contract terms that would compel states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and stop operating any program that “benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration.” Judge Smith found that the contested terms were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and violated the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore vacated them universally. The court also permanently enjoined FEMA from applying the contested terms to the plaintiff states. Illinois v. FEMA, 1:25-cv-00206, (D.R.I.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.29 GAO Opinion - Application of the Impoundment Control Act to FEMA Prior Year Federal Assistance Appropriations

GAO issued an opinion holding that FEMA violated the Impoundment Control Act by unlawfully withholding, delaying, or deobligating prior-year appropriated funds pursuant to executive branch directives, without submitting the required special message to Congress. GAO specifically found violations affecting the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, the Shelter and Services Program, and the Next Generation Warning System Grants Program, including instances where statutes required the funds to be obligated or spent. GAO noted that FEMA refused to respond to its inquiries in the matter.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.09.30 Complaint - Santa Clara v. Noem

According to a lawsuit filed by almost 30 counties against the Trump administration, DHS has modified its "Standard Terms and Conditions" for localities receiving certain grants from FEMA. Among others, the new conditions require grant recipients and subrecipients to agree to cooperate with ICE and other federal immigration-enforcement activities; agree to comply with all present and future executive orders; and agree to and certify compliance with new DEI standards. The funding at issue includes grants under the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program; Homeland Security Grant Program; Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; and others.

The complaint alleges that these conditions violate the separation of powers, the Constitution's Spending Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Plaintiff counties ask the court to declare these conditions unlawful and set them aside, and order the government not to retaliate against any county for their participation in the lawsuit. County of Santa Clara v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-08330 (N.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.02 Reported: In unusual move, FEMA halts preparedness grant money, orders states to recount their populations excluding deported migrants - CNN

CNN reports that FEMA is withholding more than $300 million in emergency-preparedness grants from states until they certify that their population estimates, used to determine grant allocations, exclude deported migrants. It is unclear how states are expected to count the number of deportees.

Emergency Management Performance Grants help states and territories improve their readiness for and resilience to extreme weather by paying for emergency-management staff, training, equipment, and public education. A FEMA spokesperson discussed "prevent[ing] fraud and abuse" and ensuring "equitable distribution" in light of population shifts. However, experts have warned that the new requirement could delay essential funds needed for day-to-day operations of many state and local emergency-management agencies.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.14 Enforcement Order - Illinois et al v. FEMA

The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island found that despite its permanent injunction from September 24, 2025, the federal government inserted the contested conditions into plaintiff states’ award letters with statements that the conditions will become effective if the injunction is stayed, vacated, or extinguished. The court held that the conditional nature of the requirement “makes little difference;” because the conditions are unlawful, the plaintiff states must be permitted to accept the awards without regard to the contested conditions. It vacated the conditions and ordered that the award documents be amended to remove such conditions within seven days. Illinois v. FEMA, No. 1: 25-cv-00206 (D.R.I.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.24 Amended Complaint - Illinois v. Noem

12 states and the District of Columbia filed an amended complaint to challenge the new population-certification requirement reported by CNN. Plaintiffs allege that on September 30, 2025, DHS issued amended Emergency Management Performance Grant awards that imposed a new requirement for states to certify their own populations excluding deported migrants. The complaint states that “[r]eal-time population figures are simply impossible to provide, and they are made doubly impossible by the demand to incorporate information about deportations that DHS alone holds.” Plaintiffs also challenge FEMA’s decision to reduce their funding under the Homeland Security Grant Program; they allege that FEMA reduced allocations only of certain states it views as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, while increasing other states’ allocations.

Plaintiffs argue that the population-certification requirement and reallocation decision violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The original complaint, challenging only the reallocation decision, was filed on September 29, 2025. Illinois v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-00495 (D.R.I.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.11.04 Complaint - Michigan v. Noem

Eleven states filed a complaint challenging the Trump administration's population-certification requirement. Plaintiffs challenge this requirement on four grounds. First, they argue that it exceeds DHS’s statutory authority, as no statute permits DHS to impose such a hold. Second, it is contrary to law because 13 U.S.C. § 183 requires federal agencies to use U.S. Census Bureau data to allocate federal grant funding; a federal agency cannot require states to develop their own methodologies and data and provide their own population figures. Third, it is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. Fourth, it was issued without observance of PRA procedural requirements. Michigan v. Noem, No. 6:25-cv-02053 (D. Or.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.11.21 Order Granting PI - Santa Clara v. Noem

A federal judge entered a preliminary injunction ordering FEMA and DHS to stop conditioning funds, including disaster emergency-preparedness grants, on conditions about local law-enforcement assisting immigration enforcement and about restricting DEI actions. County of Santa Clara v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-08330 (N.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.12.22 Memorandum and Order - Illinois v. Noem

A federal judge granted the plaintiff states' motion for summary judgment and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to restore $233 million in funding through the Homeland Security Grant Program and Emergency Management Performance Grant Program to states determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions. The opinion states that the government's decision to reallocate funding based on sanctuary status violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and capricious, given that Congress did not intend that factor to be considered in decisions regarding counterterrorism funding provision, and that the government failed to justify or explain its decisions. The court also found that DHS's requirement that funding recipients recertify their populations excluding individuals removed from the United States was arbitrary and capricious because DHS "identif[ied] no contemporaneous rationale for their last-minute changes[.]" The judge ordered the government to set aside their new funding requirements and allocations from Fall 2025 and to restore funding that was previously designated to the states. Illinois v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-00495 (D.R.I.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.12.23 Opinion and Order - Michigan v. Noem

Magistrate Judge Amy Potter granted plaintiff states' motion for summary judgment. She found that the population certification requirement is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, as it exceeds the federal government's statutory authority, is contrary to law, and is arbitrary and capricious. Judge Potter vacated the condition from plaintiff states' FEMA award notices and enjoined the Trump administration from implementing the requirement for plaintiff states. Michigan v. Noem, No. 6:25-cv-02053 (D. Or.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**