Good morning - A coalition of states filed a new lawsuit (attached) yesterday regarding the federal governments' conditioning of FEMA funding on changing the states' immigration policies. The lawsuit challenges DHS' new "Standard Terms and Conditions," which we have previously discussed (dated 3/27, 25 and 4/18, 25). The terms included a number of immigration related conditions across all DHS grants (the conditions are provided for reference below). The complaint cites to $3 billion in funding from FEMA that is at risk. Grants include disaster preparedness grants, grants to help protect against acts of terrorism and cyberattacks, grants to help fund other emergency preparedness including funding for police and fire departments, disaster relief assistance, and port security grants, among others. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the conditions are unlawful as well as relief enjoining the defendant from taking any actions to implement or enforce the immigration conditions in connection with any grant program administered by DHS (or a sub agency). The challenged conditions from the DHS Standard Terms and Conditions are the following immigration conditions: * The Information Sharing Condition (C.IX.1.a): Grant recipients "must comply with the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644," which prohibit restrictions on government entities or officials exchanging information with DHS concerning the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. * The Compliance Condition (C.IX.1.b): Grant recipients must comply with various criminal laws that prohibit, among other things, "encouraging or inducing" noncitizens to unlawfully enter the United States. * The Cooperation Condition (C.IX.1.c): Grant recipients must "honor requests for cooperation, such as participation in joint operations, sharing of information, or requests for short term detention of an alien pursuant to a valid detainer." * The Access Condition (C.IX.1.d): Grant recipients must provide federal immigration agents "access to detainees" in correctional facilities to inquire as to such individuals' right to be or remain in the United States. * The Publicization Condition (C.IX.1.e): Grant recipients must not "leak or otherwise publicize the existence of" any federal immigration enforcement operations. * The Certification Condition (C.IX.2): Grant recipients must certify compliance with the above conditions and require subgrant recipients to do the same. * Section C.XVII of the Terms and Conditions, titled "Anti-Discrimination," imposes an additional immigration condition on all DHS awards (the Benefits Condition). The Benefits Condition requires recipients of grant awards to certify that "[t]hey do not, and will not during the term of this award, operate any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration." But the condition does not define "benefits" or "incentivizes." The states point out that FEMA is already requiring that they comply with these conditions in order to secure grants, including fire management grants. These conditions are also being imposed on funding for previous disaster declarations, such as New Jersey's August 2023 disaster. The States argue the conditions are unlawful under the Tenth Amendment, Spending Clause, and separation of powers as well as under the authorizing statutes themselves, making the actions ultra vires. The states also argue the conditions violate the APA. Here's an excerpt from the complaint: Defendants assert a sweeping entitlement to use state law enforcement officers for federal immigration enforcement, contravening the basic principle that States "remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority." Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 928 (1997). And they seek to require many States to abandon well-considered policies that advance public safety by promoting trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities as a condition on continued funding of emergency management programs unrelated to immigration enforcement. By hanging a halt in this critical funding over States like a sword of Damocles, Defendants impose immense harm on States, forcing them to choose between readiness for disasters and emergencies, on the one hand, and their judgment about how best to investigate and prosecute crimes, on the other. Defendants' grant funding hostage scheme violates two key principles that underlie the American system of checks and balances: agencies in the Executive Branch cannot act contrary to the authority conferred on them by Congress, and the federal government cannot use the spending power to coerce States into adopting its preferred policies. Defendants have ignored both principles, claiming undelegated power to place their own conditions on dozens of grant programs that Congress created and bulldozing through the Constitution's boundary between state and federal authority. [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.