In a 54-page complaint led by New York state, the plaintiffs accuse the DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, Bureau of Justice Assistance and Office on Violence Against Women over a new condition that's been imposed on the use of victim services and criminal justice funds, namely, that costs providing services to immigrants are unallowable.
The rule prevents states from using grant funds under the Victims of Crime Act, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and Office on Violence Against Women to provide legal services to immigrants or those who can't prove their citizenship status, according to the states.
The plaintiff states say they use these funds to provide crucial services to victims of crime, like sexual assault, child abuse, human trafficking and domestic violence, regardless of their citizenship status.
However, the new condition fashioned by the defendants is vague as to which individuals will not be eligible for legal services, the suit says.
"The condition states that such services may not be provided to a 'removable alien … or any alien otherwise unlawfully present,'" Wednesday's complaint says. "But the determination of whether a person is 'removable under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(e)(2), or 'otherwise unlawfully present' requires a complex inquiry — one that immigration judges or adjudicators may take years to decide in administrative proceedings."
"Moreover, the construction of the exception itself creates ambiguity: the condition seems to imply that anyone who is 'removable' is also 'unlawfully present.' But that is not the case," the suit continues.
The new rule violates the Constitution's spending clause since it applies to grants awarded to the plaintiffs before the condition was issued, including any open Byrne JAG and VOA grants, the suit argues. That means, the states had no chance to consider the new rule before they accepted the grant awards, it adds.
Furthermore, the states contend, the rule is vague as to which specific legal services are restricted, which subgroup of immigrants is precluded from legal services, and how the plaintiffs must decide which subgroup of immigrants cannot access legal services.
"The Spending Clause prohibits the imposition of post-acceptance conditions on grants," the complaint adds. "While the government can impose conditions on federal funds, this authority does 'not include surprising participating states with post acceptance or 'retroactive' conditions. Yet, this is precisely what defendants have done."
The new rule also runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, as the federal government agency defendants haven't explained the reasoning behind it, "let alone a reasonable and well-reasoned one," the suit says.
Wednesday's complaint is the latest in a wave of similar constitutional challenges filed by states across the country challenging the federal government's decisions on different types of grant funding that state attorneys general say are arbitrary, capricious and tailored to push forward the Trump administration's stance on immigration and "gender ideology."
On Monday, attorneys general of 11 states and Washington, D.C., led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for allegedly slashing their critical national security and emergency response grant funds administered under the Homeland Security Grant Program unless they help enforce federal immigration laws.
Last Friday, several state attorneys general, led by Washington state, sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Oregon federal over the agency's attempt, through "threatening letters" with "coercive terms and conditions," to force the states to revise their sexual health education materials in a way that the states contend would single out and harm trans and gender-diverse youth.
Five months ago, a 20-state coalition hit the Trump administration with lawsuits in Rhode Island federal court seeking to block DHS and the U.S. Department of Transportation from conditioning billions of state grant dollars on enforcing the president's immigration agenda.
In that case, U.S. District Judge William E. Smith granted a summary judgment bid last week in favor of the states and Washington, D.C., agreeing that the conditions imposed by DHS — which include requiring grant recipients share immigration-related information and "honor requests for cooperation" — were articulated following a "wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary process."
According to Wednesday's filing challenging the conditions imposed on victim services funding grants, the states argue that the government defendants haven't referenced any authority showing Congress planned for the agencies to condition access to the program based on immigration status.
"In their overnight change to the longstanding grant conditions allowing these services regardless of immigration status, defendants have failed to consider that, imposing this new immigration-related condition may run afoul of the core purposes of these grant programs — particularly the VOCA and VAWA programs, which are premised on the principle that all victims should be enabled to participate in the criminal matters underlying their own victimization, on an equal basis and without fear of adverse consequences," the complaint argues. "This is a matter of both victims' dignity and public safety."
The states assert several violations of the Constitution's spending clause and of the APA. The plaintiffs ask the court to find that the implementation of any part of the legal services rule violates the laws asserted in the complaint and to pause any imposition of the new rule in the DOJ's guidelines.
The states also ask the court to block the defendants from implementing or enforcing any aspects of the rule and to maintain jurisdiction to keep track of the government's compliance with the court's judgment, and for the defendants to pay the states their attorney fees and costs.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Wednesday that sexual assault and domestic violence survivors who turn to courts for protection and safety should never be turned away because of who they are or where they come from.
"With this cruel attempt to dictate which survivors deserve access to legal supports, DOJ is endangering families, silencing survivors, and threatening public safety." James said. "I will not stand idly by while the federal government unjustly attacks people seeking protection from violence. We are asking the court to block this illegal rule before it takes effect, immeasurably harming survivors."
Representatives for the defendants did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
The plaintiffs are represented by their respective attorneys general.
Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available.
The case is State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., case number 1:25-cv-00499, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
--Editing by Kristen Becker.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
