A coalition of 20 states has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the White House is unlawfully using more than a billion dollars in public safety grants as a lever to compel state cooperation with immigration enforcement. The legal battle raises a direct constitutional question: whether the executive branch can override Congress’s authority over federal funding conditions.
The Stakes for Law Enforcement and Crime Victims
The grant programs at issue funnel more than $1 billion annually to all 50 states and more than 1,000 local government units. That money funds law enforcement work targeting gang violence, drug trafficking, sexual assault, and other violent crimes. It also supports more than 8.5 million crime victims each year and covers over 200,000 claims for victim losses. Cutting states off from these dollars would not be a bureaucratic inconvenience — it would pull support from some of the most vulnerable people in the justice system.
What Happened
The Wisconsin Department of Justice took the lead in joining 19 other states — including Massachusetts and Virginia — in the lawsuit. The administration had informed states that access to federal public safety grants would depend on compliance with its immigration enforcement priorities, including cooperation with deportation operations.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul framed the action in stark terms, telling Stateline that threatening law enforcement funding over what he called unlawful conditions amounted to an abuse of executive authority. “This funding should be distributed to the states, not improperly used as a bargaining chip,” Kaul told Stateline.
This is not the first time states have pushed back. A prior coalition lawsuit challenged the administration’s move to block access to Victims of Crime Act funds — which totaled roughly $1.3 billion in that prior cycle — unless states aligned with deportation priorities. That legal challenge forced the administration to reverse course and release the money. Now the administration has extended similar conditions to juvenile justice and general law enforcement funding, prompting the new, broader lawsuit.
By the Numbers
$1 billion-plus in annual federal public safety grants distributed to all 50 states and more than 1,000 local units of government. 8.5 million crime victims receive assistance through these programs each year. 200,000 victim loss claims are paid annually through the same funding streams. Wisconsin alone stands to lose more than $6 million: $3.2 million in direct grant assistance, $2.1 million for crisis intervention programs, and $800,000 for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Separately, 20 sheriff offices across Wisconsin already cooperate with federal immigration authorities through the 287(g) program — meaning the state is not without immigration enforcement partnerships.
The Broader Constitutional Question
The heart of the legal argument is a separation of powers dispute. Congress holds the power of the purse and sets the criteria under which executive agencies distribute grants. When the administration attaches new conditions — especially conditions that serve a separate policy goal unrelated to the grants’ original purpose — it steps into legislative territory. The states argue that the executive branch lacks authority to unilaterally rewrite funding rules that Congress established.
The tension inside Wisconsin illustrates the complexity on the ground. While two dozen sheriff offices in the state participate in ICE’s 287(g) partnership program, some police departments and jails maintain policies that prohibit participation in immigration enforcement. Milwaukee County has gone further, enacting local ordinances aimed at limiting ICE operations. ICE, meanwhile, has conducted enforcement surges in neighborhoods and at courthouses since President Trump returned to office in January 2025.
The administration’s position is that states receiving federal dollars should not obstruct federal law. The states’ position is that Congress — not the White House — gets to decide what strings come attached to federal grants, and that using public safety money as a negotiating tool undermines both law enforcement effectiveness and the constitutional order.
How courts resolve that dispute will carry consequences well beyond immigration policy. A ruling siding with the administration would expand executive leverage over virtually any block of federal grant funding. A ruling for the states would reaffirm congressional primacy over the spending power — a principle conservatives and federalists have long defended. The outcome will matter for the midterm political landscape and for the broader debate over federal authority and state sovereignty.
Category: Constitution | Tags: Immigration, National Security, Wisconsin, Josh Kaul