tying

California and other Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Monday for allegedly stripping them of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal security and disaster relief funding based on their unwillingness to aid in federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit comes just days after a federal judge in a separate case barred the administration from conditioning similar federal grant funding on states rescinding their so-called “sanctuary” policies protecting immigrants.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the latest funding reduction — which the states were notified of over the weekend — flew in the face of last week’s ruling. He criticized it as an illegal effort to force Democratic states into complying with a federal immigration campaign they have no legal obligation to support.

“Tell me, how does defunding California’s efforts to protect against terrorism make our communities safer?” Bonta said in a statement. “President Trump doesn’t like that we won’t be bullied into doing his bidding, ignoring our sovereign right to make decisions about how our law enforcement resources are best used to protect our communities.”

The White House referred questions on the lawsuit to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The agency has previously argued that its core mission is to defend the nation’s security against threats, including from illegal immigration, and therefore that it should be able to withhold funding from states that it believes are not upholding or are actively undermining that mission.

The funding in question — billions of dollars annually — is distributed to the states to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters,” and have been distributed “evenhandedly” for decades by administrations of both political parties, the states’ lawsuit argues.

The funding, authorized by Congress in part after disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina, pays for things such as the salaries and training of first responders, testing of state computer systems for vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, mutual aid compacts among regional partners and emergency responses to disasters, the states said in their lawsuit.

Bonta’s office said California expected about $165 million, but was notified it would receive $110 million, a cut of $55 million, or a third of its funding. Other blue states saw even greater reductions, with Illinois seeing a 69% reduction and New York receiving a 79% reduction, it said.

Other states that are supporting the Trump administration’s immigration policies received large increases, and some more than 100% increases, the suing states said.

They said the notifications provided no justification for the reductions, noting only that they were made at the direction of Homeland Security. And yet, the reason was clear, they said, including because of recent comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other administration officials who have stated outright that states who do not cooperate with federal immigration policies and that maintain sanctuary policies would see reduced funding.

“The explanation for DHS and FEMA’s last-minute decision to reallocate $233 million in homeland security funds — the Reallocation Decision — is apparent. Although DHS has for decades administered federal grant programs in a fair and evenhanded manner, the current Administration is taking money from its enemies,” the states wrote in their lawsuit. “Or, as defendant Secretary Noem put it succinctly in a February 19 internal memorandum, States whose policies she dislikes ‘should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money.’”

The states also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to immediately block the funding cuts — and prevent the Federal Emergency Management Agency from disbursing any related funds that could not be recouped later — as the case proceeds.

Just last week, a federal judge ruled that the administration setting immigration-related conditions on similar emergency funding was “arbitrary and capricious,” and unconstitutional.

“DHS justifies the conditions by pointing to its broad homeland security mission, but the grants at issue fund programs such as disaster relief, fire safety, dam safety, and emergency preparedness,” the judge in that case wrote. “Sweeping immigration-related conditions imposed on every DHS-administered grant, regardless of statutory purpose, lack the necessary tailoring.”

Last month, another judge ruled in a third case that the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles or other local jurisdictions based on their sanctuary policies.

In their lawsuit Monday, California and the other states argued that the Trump administration appeared “undeterred” by last week’s ruling against pre-conditioning funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.

After being “frustrated in its first attempt to coerce [the states] into enforcing federal civil immigration law,” the states wrote, “DHS took yet another lawless action” by simply reallocating funding to “more favored jurisdictions” willing to support the administration’s immigration crackdown.

Bonta said the law requires such funding to be distributed based on objective assessments of “threat and risk,” but the weekend notifications showed the Trump administration doing little more than “rushing to work around last week’s order” and “force and coerce” blue states into compliance in a new way.

“This is a lawless, repeat offender administration that keeps breaking the law,” he said.

Bonta said the lawsuit is the 40th his office has filed against the current Trump administration to date. He said his office was in conversation with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, and that they both believe that “we deserve all the funding that has been appropriated to us.”

Joining California in Monday’s lawsuit were Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. All were also party to the litigation challenging preconditions on such funding that was decided last week.

ORLANDO, Fla. — LAFC closed out the Club World Cup by tying Flamengo 1-1 at Inter & Co Stadium on Tuesday night.

Orlando has a large Brazilian community accustomed to cheering on former Orlando City star Kaká and current Orlando Pride star Marta. As a result, Brazilian club Flamengo enjoyed a strong push from the crowd against LAFC.

Flamengo’s Wallace Yan came off the bench and scored the game’s equalizer in the 86th minute. He received a pass from Jorginho, ran at full speed and scored with a right-footed shot from the penalty spot.

The 20-year-old striker’s goal gave Flamengo a draw. The team will face German giants Bayern Munich in the round of 16. That match will be played on Sunday in Miami.

LAFC claimed the lead in the third minute thanks to Denis Bouanga, scorer of the MLS team’s lone goal in the tournament.

Flamengo topped Group D with seven points, one more than Chelsea. Esperance of Tunisia (three points) and LAFC (one) were eliminated.

“I couldn’t be prouder of the guys,” LAFC coach Steve Cherundolo said. “I’m really happy with their effort. … It’s very difficult against a quality side like Flamengo, but I think we did well with the opportunities we had.”

With first place in their group assured, after victories over Esperance (2-0) and Chelsea (3-1), the Rio de Janeiro club took the end of the group stage as a break.

They could have finished it off much earlier, but the goalposts stood in the way a couple of times.

The first came at the 30-minute mark with a fierce shot from Pedro, after a nice combination of passes, which splintered the crossbar of the goal defended by Hugo Lloris.

Uruguay midfielder Giorgian de Arrascaeta also delivered a shot that was off target in the 70th minute just before heading to the bench.

“We had total control of the match. We created countless chances, especially in the first half. We had a few shots hit the post, other chances that didn’t end up finishing, but we created them,” said Filipe Luís, Flamengo’s coach. “Unfortunately, we were not very good in front of goal.”

It was the first Club World Cup match played in Orlando that was not affected by bad weather. It was also the best attended match in the city, with 32,933 spectators in attendance at a Camping World stadium with a capacity of 60,219.

June 20 (UPI) — A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump‘s attempt to make federal transportation funding contingent on state compliance with his immigration policies.

In his ruling Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Providence, R.I., said not only does the Department of Transportation lack the authority to tie grant funding to immigration enforcement, but the directive also usurps Congress’ power of the purse while being “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Congress did not authorize or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes,” the President Barack Obama appointee said in his brief ruling.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by 20 state attorneys general challenging an April 24 directive sent to all Department of Transportation funding receipts, stating they must comply with an Immigration Enforcement Condition when applying for future grants.

The letter specifies that as recipients, they have “entered into legally enforceable agreements with the United States Government and are obligated to comply fully with all applicable Federal laws and regulations,” particularly those relating to immigration enforcement and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“Adherence to your legal obligations is a prerequisite for receipt of DOT financial assistance,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s letter states.

“Noncompliance with applicable Federal laws, or failure to cooperate generally with Federal authorities in the enforcement of Federal law, will jeopardize your continued receipt of Federal financial assistance from DOT and could lead to a loss of Federal funding from DOT.”

The 20 Democrat-led states filed their lawsuit against the directive in May, arguing the Department of Transportation has no authority to tie grants to federal civil immigration enforcement, as the two are unrelated.

In his ruling, McConnell agreed with the plaintiffs.

“The IEC, backed by the Duffy Directive, is arbitrary and capricious in its scope and lacks specificity in how the States are to cooperate on immigration enforcement in exchange for Congressionally appropriated transportation dollars — grant money that the States rely on to keep their residents safely and efficiently on the road, in the sky and on the rails,” he said.

“[T]he IEC is not at all reasonably related to the transportation funding program grants.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded the ruling while chastising Trump for “threatening to withhold critical transportation funds unless states agree to carry out his inhumane and illogical immigration agenda.

“It’s immoral — and more importantly, illegal,” the Democrat said. “I’m glad the District Court agrees, blocking the President’s latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution and coerce state and local governments into doing his bidding while we continue to make our case in court.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has led a crackdown on immigration, with many of his policies being challenged in court.

Late Thursday, an appeals court handed Trump a victory in the battle, permitting California National Guard troops to remain deployed on Los Angeles streets amid protests against his immigration policies.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to continue to fight what he called “President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers.”

WASHINGTON — California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed two lawsuits on Tuesday challenging a Trump administration policy that would deny the state billions of dollars in transportation grants unless it follows the administration’s lead on immigration enforcement.

“Let’s be clear about what’s happening here,” Bonta said in a statement. “The President is threatening to yank funds to improve our roads, keep our planes in the air, prepare for emergencies, and protect against terrorist attacks if states do not fall in line with his demands.”

“He’s treating these funds, which have nothing to do with immigration enforcement and everything to do with the safety of our communities, as a bargaining chip,” Bonta added.

The lawsuits, filed with a coalition of states against the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security, argue that imposing the new set of conditions across a broad range of grant programs exceeds the administration’s legal authority.

Last month, Trump signed an executive order aiming to identify and possibly cut off federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities and states, which limit collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration authorities.

“It’s quite simple,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in a briefing announcing the executive order. “Obey the law, respect the law, and don’t obstruct federal immigration officials and law enforcement officials when they are simply trying to remove public safety threats from our nation’s communities.”

Cities and states that find themselves on the Trump administration’s list could also face criminal and civil rights lawsuits, as well as charges for violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

During Trump’s first term in 2018, California legislators passed a pioneering sanctuary law, the California Values Act.

California receives more than $15.7 billion in transportation grants annually to maintain roads, highways, railways, airways and bridges, Bonta’s office said. That includes $2 billion for transit systems, including buses, commuter rail, trolleys and ferries.

The state also receives $20.6 billion in yearly homeland security grants to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. Those funds include emergency preparedness and cybersecurity grants.

But the coalition of states — California, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island — argued that because such grant funding has no connection to immigration enforcement, the Trump administration cannot impose criteria that forces states to comply with its vision of enforcement.

“President Trump doesn’t have the authority to unlawfully coerce state and local governments into using their resources for federal immigration enforcement — and his latest attempt to bully them into doing so is blatantly illegal,” Bonta said.

This story will be updated.