A coalition of Democratic attorneys general from 21 states, along with the District of Columbia, initiated legal action on Wednesday against the Trump administration. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, targets a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) regulation that curtails federal grant money aimed at victim services on the basis of immigration status.
The new DOJ policy, set to be enacted on October 31, prohibits recipients of Victims of Crime Act grants, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, and Violence Against Women Act funds from offering legal aid to immigrants classified as removable or unlawfully present, except for a few specified exceptions.
Arizona's AG Kris Mayes vocalized the lawsuit's intent to maintain access to essential services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and other serious crimes. Mayes highlighted concerns that individuals unable to verify their immigration status might be denied necessary support, potentially leaving at-risk groups without crucial assistance.
The grants in question support a diverse array of services, including legal representation in family court, relocation and housing aid, and medical and funeral expenses, along with other civil legal supports. They also finance state and local criminal justice initiatives through Byrne JAG grants. Historically, these services have been provided to victims irrespective of their immigration status.
California AG Rob Bonta lambasted the Trump administration's approach as both "unlawful" and "reckless," underlining the potential loss of up to $94 million in federal aid for California. Bonta framed the conflict as an issue of fairness and public safety, beyond just a funding dispute.
The lawsuit contends that the rule breaches the Constitution's Spending Clause by retroactively enforcing conditions that states could not have foreseen and argues that the policy's vagueness concerning affected services and populations is problematic. Additionally, it posits that the DOJ's actions are at odds with the Administrative Procedure Act, which forbids arbitrary limitations on federal programs.
Legal experts suggest that the lawsuit's outcome might set a benchmark for how federal agencies impose grant conditions related to immigration status. The case underscores the friction between national policy objectives and state-level ambitions to ensure victim protections are accessible to all residents, regardless of legal status.
Nonprofit leaders have also supported the states' position. Pat Bell, CEO of House of Ruth, stated that withholding services based on immigration status could empower abusers, while Mark Lee, CEO of Radiant Future, warned that the rule could perpetuate cycles of abuse.
Other AGs have expressed their disapproval. Washington's Nick Brown described the policy as an unlawful attempt to make service providers act as extensions of federal immigration enforcement. Colorado's Phil Weiser emphasized that the restrictions threaten community safety, and New York's Letitia James asserted that survivors should not be excluded on the basis of nationality or residency.
The DOJ has not provided any response, citing delays due to the federal government shutdown. California's 41 legal challenges against the Trump administration in 36 weeks exemplify the ongoing contention between federal immigration policies and state-level initiatives to safeguard crime victims.
