This story by Ariana Figueroa and Ashley Murray was originally published on the Colorado Newsline. It’s shortened.
A federal judge in Rhode Island blocked an order that had been yanking billions of federal dollars for state roads, bridges and airport projects that didn’t support Trump’s administration’s immigration crackdown.
US District Judge John James McConnell Jr. granted a preliminary injunction late Thursday to 20 democratically-led states, which filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transport and Dott Secretary Sean Duffy.
McConnell’s orders apply only to the 20 plaintiffs’ states he wrote, as Duffy acted outside his authority when he placed new eligibility requirements on funds already allocated by the Congress for a particular purpose.
McConnell ruled ahead of the Friday deadline for infrastructure grant applications.
The states filed the lawsuits are California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
Fitting power
“The defendants are trying to retain tens of millions of dollars of vital transport funds to force plaintiffs’ states to become merely weapons of the federal immigration enforcement policy,” said Delbert Tran of the California Department of Justice, who claimed on behalf of the state.
On behalf of the Trump administration, Bloom said Duffy’s letter simply directs the state to comply with federal immigration laws.
The judge said Bloom’s argument expressed a “very different” interpretation of the order than the way the administration publicly described it. He also said President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noem “drifted away” the issues that arise from the sanctuary cities.
It will undermine the parliament
Tran said the Department of Transport’s directive is not only arbitrary and whimsical, but it undermines Congress’ authority as it allocated more than $100 billion to transport projects to the state.
Cutting funds would have disastrous consequences, the state argued.
“If more cars, planes and trains crash and the defendant cuts federal funds to the plaintiffs’ state, more people will die,” according to the state brief.
Source link
