A Rhode Island Judge Tells Trump "No"

And it's a very important "no"

Tonight, I want to focus on a case you probably haven’t heard about, California v. Department of Transportation. It was brought by Democratic state attorneys general from across the country in the District of Rhode Island. Today, District Judge John McConnell, Jr., dealt the Trump administration a major loss in the case, which will stymie its efforts to coerce states into supporting its immigration policies. The Judge entered a preliminary injunction that prevents the administration from withholding Department of Transportation funding from states that refuse to help the administration enforce its interpretation of immigration laws.

In April, Trump’s Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, issued the "Duffy directive," which requires states that are recipients of transportation grants to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. It provides that states lose funding if they don’t comply with the administration’s “Immigration Enforcement Condition” (IEC), which conditions the provision of transportation funding for states across the country on cooperation with federal immigration efforts. DOT funding supports construction, maintenance, and improvement of transportation infrastructure and related services. Its loss is no small thing.

In today’s order, Judge McConnell ordered the administration to stop enforcing the IEC and prohibited it from withholding or terminating federal funding on that basis.

Of course, the Trump administration is free to and undoubtedly will appeal the injunction. But Judge McConnell specifically noted that the court will retain jurisdiction to monitor the Trump administration’s compliance with this preliminary injunction. The Judge also denied the administration’s request to stay this Order.

Rhode Island is in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which also includes Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Puerto Rico. In March, the First Circuit ruled against Trump’s efforts to cancel birthright citizenship.

When it grants an injunction, a court must find that the party seeking it is likely to win on the merits of the case. Here, Judge McConnell wrote that the Department of Transportation didn’t have the legal authority to impose the IEC as a requirement for receiving federal funding because “Congress has not granted the U.S. DOT any power to conscript the State government into federal immigration enforcement efforts.” The Judge also suggested that this action by the federal government violates the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because Congress has the power of the purse. The Judge concluded that “The Government does not cite to any plausible connection between cooperating with ICE enforcement and the congressionally approved purposes of the Department of Transportation.” He goes on to note that if the executive branch can do this, then it could also “place any conditions it chose on congressionally appropriated funds, even when it would be entirely unrelated to the Department’s purpose. Such is not how the three equal branches of government are allowed to operate under our Constitution.”

You may recall that the issue of whether the administration can compel state and local governments to help enforce its immigration policy has been under discussion, and there is strong law that suggests they cannot. Voluntary cooperation between the federal government and state law enforcement is entirely permissible, but the Trump administration’s efforts to force state and local law enforcement agencies to help them enforce federal immigration policy is a different story and likely illegal under longstanding caselaw involving the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prohibits the federal government from compelling states to administer federal programs. In a 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court overruled a federal law that drafted local law enforcement officers to perform background checks on gun buyers, which is very similar to forcing them to participate.

So the administration is trying to gild the lily by coercing state officials into offering their assistance if they want to hold onto funding the Transportation Department provides, instead of directing them to assist. The administration can technically maintain it’s not ordering state law enforcement to comply, but it’s tantamount to the same thing. This loss in the courts, even though it’s at this early injunction stage and not a full decision on the merits, is an important one in imposing some constraints on this runaway presidency.

The situation with the Department of Transportation has the feeling of testing the waters—if it works at Transportation, why not try it at HHS, DOJ, DHS, and so on, in essence holding states hostage to compliance with Trump’s immigration—and perhaps additional—policies. It’s the next logical step for an administration that has tried to bring universities, law firms, and newspapers to heel. The throughline in all of this is Trump’s efforts to accumulate power. It’s hard to believe that the man who shows little empathy for anyone else or concern for the future of democracy is doing this because he somehow believes it’s in the best interests of the country or the institution of the presidency. He’s doing it for himself, in this moment. It’s important that the courts continue to draw lines he can’t cross.

If you appreciate the occasional late-night discussion of the details of a newly decided court case, you’re in the right place. Civil Discourse is about the intersection of law and politics, and understanding the law is critical to a clear assessment of where our politics stand. If you’d like to support this kind of work and help me devote the time and resources necessary to it, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

We’re in this together,

Joyce