Filed Date: Sept. 29, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the Trump Administration Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) decision to reduce grant award amounts to at least eight states. The plaintiff states allege the Administration reduced these awards because they refused to deploy their local law enforcement to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws.
On September 29, 2025, 11 states and Washington D.C. sued DHS and FEMA regarding cuts that dramatically reduced their grant awards under the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), programs intended to help states and cities prevent and prepare for terrorist attacks. The plaintiff states had their awards reduced by 11%-79% from their notice of funding to the final award (Reallocation Decision). The plaintiffs state that the money taken from them has been reallocated to other states whose immigration policies the administration viewed more favorably such as Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina.
These cuts occurred five days after an injunction was entered against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Illinois v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, _ F. Supp. 3d _, 2025 WL 2716277. In that case, the court held that DHS and FEMA illegally withheld funds from plaintiff states who refused to deploy local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.
The plaintiffs allege the Reallocation Decision is unlawfully arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because (1) the only explanation given for the cuts was that the award was adjusted "per DHS directive;" (2) the Administration relied on a factor (disagreement on recipient's policies) not listed in the statutes authorizing the grants; (3) the decision abandons a previous DHS regulation that requires expected dollar amounts of awards be provided up front; and (4) the decision fails to account for the plaintiff states' reliance interests. Plaintiffs also argue the Reallocation Decision violates the APA because the authorizing statute does not allow the administration to reallocate funds based on nondescript DHS directives. Further, the Administration did not follow the required procedure because the FEMA administrator must specify in writing when they considered additional factors in making allocation decisions, which they did not do here. Thus, plaintiffs argue, the Reallocation Decision was made outside of DHS's statutory authority.
Additionally, plaintiffs allege the Reallocation Decision violates the Spending Clause because only Congress can attach conditions to federal money, and the Administration is attempting to add a coercive term to these federal funds. The Reallocation Decision also violates the principle of equal sovereignty among the States, because the Administration treated some states more favorably than others with no rationale given for the differential treatment.
Plaintiffs also alleged that DHS unlawfully reduced the performance period of the grant programs from three years to one year, and changed the start date of EMPG grants ("Performance Period Decision"). The notices of funding told applicants to frame their budget needs to a three-year performance period, which the plaintiffs did before the application deadline. When the grant awards were issued, the performance period was reduced to one year, running from October 1, 2025 to September 30, 2026. Further, EMPG grants were typically backdated to the previous year, thus essentially skipping a year of program funding. The plaintiffs alleged this harmed them because they were expecting to receive the full amount they specified in their applications, thus they would have to redo their budgets to align with the one-year, rather than three-year award. The plaintiffs argued this was arbitrary and capricious under the APA because DHS did not provide an explanation for the reduced performance period and they did not consider the plaintiffs reliance interests.
This case was assigned to Judge Mary S. McElroy.
Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) along with their complaint, and on September 30, 2025, the court granted the TRO. On October 21, 2025, Judge McElroy modified the TRO to apply only to funds reallocated between the final grant notice of funding opportunity and the final award notifications, an amount totaling $245.5 million. The original TRO had applied to all awards under the program made in fiscal year 2025.
On October 24, 2025, plaintiffs and defendants agreed to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. On that day, plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint. First, the complaint added Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as a plaintiff on behalf of the state of Pennsylvania. Second, the complaint removed Count Five, which alleged the Reallocation Decision violated the Spending Clause, and removed Count Six, which argued the Reallocation Decision violated the principle of Equal Sovereignty amongst the states.
Third, the amended complaint added 3 counts related to a new "Population Certification Requirement." On September 30th, 2025 (the day after the initial complaint was filed), DHS reissued the grant award letters, which placed a hold on the funding until states certified their populations as of September 30th, 2025. The purpose of this requirement was to make sure that the reported population did not include individuals removed from the state due to violation of immigration laws. Plaintiffs alleged this was the first time population certification was a requirement to receive these grants. Plaintiffs further alleged that the data on the number of individuals removed for immigration violations is controlled by the federal government and has not been provided to the states, and that the plaintiffs would be unable to certify their populations before they could timely fund projects that rely on this funding.
Plaintiffs argue the Population Certification Requirement is unlawful because (1) federal law requires the federal government to rely on census data when benefits are determined by the states' populations; (2) the Paperwork Reduction Act prohibits federal agencies from adopting regulations that impose paperwork requirements on the public unless the agency cannot get that information from another federal source, and there are procedures that were not followed to ensure this information was not available; and (3) the requirement was unreasoned and unexplained, and thus arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The plaintiffs added three counts to the complaint under the APA, with these three arguments to support those counts.
On October 30, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, reiterating the claims they made in their complaints and asked the court to vacate the Reallocation Decision, Population Certification Requirement, and Performance Period Decision, and to issue a permanent injunction to prevent DHS from putting these decisions into action.
On November 20, 2025, the defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over these claims because they arise out of a government contract and thus should be filed in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. Defendants also argued that these funding changes complied with the relevant statutes because FEMA changed the funding methodology to award more money to combat threats posed by transnational criminal organizations and illegal border crossings. Further, the defendants argued that a notice of funding opportunity does not create reasonable reliance interests, so the plaintiffs were not harmed by the reduced funding, and the Population Certification Requirement and Performance Period Decision aren't reviewable by the court because grant terms and conditions are committed to agency discretion by law. Additionally, the Population Certification Requirement is lawful because the law does not require that FEMA only exclusively on census data in making funding decisions, and requiring up-to-date population data is a reasonable condition, and FEMA plans to provide more guidance on how the states can comply with this condition. For these same reasons, the defendants also argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Meanwhile, on November 10, 2025, the State of Texas filed a motion to intervene, arguing that they are entitled to intervene because they have fiscal (their specific grant award) and nonfiscal interests (protecting their citizens) that would not be adequately represented by the federal government. On November 24, 2025, the Court denied Texas's motion, finding that Texas failed to make the necessary "strong affirmative showing" that the federal government would not adequately represent their interests.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Claire Pollard (9/29/2025)
Michael Vandergriff (10/20/2025)
Bryan Waugh (11/30/2025)
State of New York v. Noem, Southern District of New York (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71490307/parties/state-of-illinois-v-noem/
Berks, Paul (Rhode Island)
Boyer, Jacob (Rhode Island)
Dirks, Katherine Brady (Rhode Island)
Duraiswamy, Shankar (Rhode Island)
Al-Fuhaid, Munera (Rhode Island)
Dirks, Katherine Brady (Rhode Island)
Duraiswamy, Shankar (Rhode Island)
Gibson, Rosanna E. (Rhode Island)
Kassab, Vanessa L. (Rhode Island)
Meosky, Paul Timothy (Rhode Island)
Meskill, Ashley H. (Rhode Island)
Muqaddam, Rabia (Rhode Island)
Reich, Mitchell (Rhode Island)
Roberts, Tyler S. (Rhode Island)
Sabatini, Kathryn M. (Rhode Island)
Stanley, James Edward (Rhode Island)
Thompson, Stephen (Rhode Island)
Thompson, Julio A (Rhode Island)
Thrift-Viveros, Deylin O (Rhode Island)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71490307/state-of-illinois-v-noem/
Last updated Dec. 3, 2025, 12:38 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 29, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
States of Illinois, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Washington and Washington DC
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
Federal Emergency Management Agency (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
District of Rhode Island 1:25-cv-00495
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.: