Good afternoon: Thank you to those that joined today's immigration call. We will have a federal funding call tomorrow at 2 pm eastern. Here is a link to that zoom call: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82552547555. I am providing a few additional updates: 1. Ability to join existing lawsuits. As was discussed on today's immigration call, if local governments are interested in joining either San Francisco v. Trump (sanctuary jurisdiction EO litigation) or King County v. Turner (HUD Continuum of Care / FTA grant conditions), there may be opportunities to do so in the near future as there is contemplation of an amended complaint in these cases. If you are interested in learning more about the ability to join these lawsuits please email Jonathan Miller at jon@publicrightsproject.org<mailto:jon@publicrightsproject.org> and Naomi Tsu at naomi@publicrightsproject.org<mailto:naomi@publicrightsproject.org>. 1. New Funding / Immigration Lawsuit. There was another lawsuit filed by the coalition of states yesterday in State of California v. United States Department of Transportation. That lawsuit is attached. This lawsuit challenges the immigration conditions imposed on Department of Transportation funding and makes similar legal arguments to the DHS / FEMA challenge I sent around this morning (the conditions are Ultra Vires / not authorized by Congress, they violate the Spending Clause, and violate the APA). The court issued a text order today ordering the parties to show cause as to why this case should not be consolidated with the FEMA case I sent this morning (Illinois v. FEMA). The complaint challenges the April 24, 2025 DOT Duffy Letter which states that "all U.S. DOT funding recipients would be required to "cooperate with Federal officials in the enforcement of . . . Federal immigration law." The complaint explains that subagencies are now implementing this directive by imposing nearly identical language into their standard terms and conditions. For example, the Federal Railway Administration added new terms to its general terms and conditions that requires recipients to "cooperate with Federal officials in the enforcement of Federal law, including cooperating with and not impeding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Federal offices and components of the Department of Homeland Security in and the enforcement of Federal immigration law." The complaint cites to similar amended Federal Highway Administration general terms, an amended Master Agreement for the Federal Transit Administration, the new FY25 FAA grant template as well as similar language that has been added to specific grant award documents. Notably, the States ask that the court "Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from taking adverse action against any state entity or local jurisdiction, including debarring it or making it ineligible for federal funding, based on the Immigration Enforcement Condition, absent specific statutory authorization;" From the complaint: For more than a century, Congress has used its constitutional authority to enact numerous statutes that direct federal funding to the States to promote the development, maintenance, and safety of our nation's transportation infrastructure. State and local governments have relied on these federal funding programs-totaling more than $100 billion annually-to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and carry their residents to their workplaces and their homes. All of these federal programs provide funding to Plaintiff States pursuant to statutes that Congress enacted. All of these statutes direct Defendants to distribute funding according to the means Congress specified. And none of these statutes concerns immigration enforcement or identifies State cooperation with immigration enforcement as a prerequisite for federal funding. Despite these constraints imposed by Congress and the Constitution, Defendants are now attempting to seize Congress's power of the purse by imposing a federal immigration enforcement condition on transportation funds-funds like those intended to replace decaying bridges, repair roads and highways, and ensure safe air travel-that have nothing to do with federal immigration enforcement. And despite the detailed statutory schemes specific to each federal program at issue here, Defendants effectively seek to rewrite those laws by categorically and unlawfully imposing the same federal immigration enforcement condition across all of them. Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.