New York, California Cities Sue Over Trump’s Funding Demands (1)

New York State and, separately, more than two dozen California localities are suing the Trump administration over its plans to withhold federal funds until they yield to the president’s domestic agenda.

New York suit, filed Tuesday at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, attacks the administration’s its plan to cut relief under the Rail and Transit Security Grant Program unless the state agrees to allow state law enforcement agencies to supplement the federal government’s civil immigration enforcement.

That complaint was accompanied by a request for emergency injunctive relief sought but not granted by midnight, ahead of the US government shutdown that began Wednesday morning.

“New Yorkers lived through the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, and we know what is at stake here,” NYS Attorney General Letitia James (D) said in a press statement announcing the suit.

The California localities, which include the cities and counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, say the administration has conditioned their receipt of Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency grant money upon the municipalities’ certification that they will comply with “all executive orders the president has issued and might in the future issue to advance and impose his domestic political agenda.”

That complaint, which seeks a declaration those conditions and others are unconstitutional, together with injunctive relief was filed Tuesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Immigration, Transportation

During his first term in office, President Donald Trump‘s efforts to punish sanctuary cities by threatening their funding were largely unsuccessful. Now in his second term, Trump’s resurrecting the same play book with a few new twists, but is still having problems in court.

In April, a federal court blocked a presidential executive order that withhold federal funds for cities and counties that refused to dedicate resources to enforce federal immigration law. Judge William H. Orrick of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said that the “sanctuary jurisdictions” were likely to show the orders are unconstitutional and they face irreparable harm if they lose federal funds.

In their new suit, the California localities say that to be eligible for an emergency grant, applicants must additionally certify compliance with the administration’s interpretation of antidiscrimination laws, agree to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Those conditions, and the others, violate the separation of powers, the spending power, and the Administrative Procedure Act, the municipal complaint says.

Under the transit grant program, which was adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, New York State received federal funds to “protect sensitive transit networks against chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive threats, improve transit evacuation systems, and make improvements to transit security,” its complaint says.

Money Sent Elsewhere

But the administration cut the amount the state was supposed to receive from the Federal Emergency Management Agency from $34 million to $0, it says.

New York hasn’t received an explanation for the cut in funds, but, based on the executive order issued by the president that says sanctuary jurisdictions are in “lawless insurrection,” believes it was targeted by the administration. It also believes that the funds previously set aside for it were reallocated to other states.

The reallocation decision is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA; is contrary to the TSGP statute; is outside the authority of the executive branch; and violates the constitutional principle of equal sovereignty, New York’s complaint says.

The California plaintiffs are represented by municipal counsel including those of the City and County of San Francisco, and Santa Clara County. The New York Attorney General’s Office represents New York.

The cases are Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Noem, N.D. Cal., No. 3:25-cv-08330, complaint filed 9/30/25; New York v. Noem, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-08106, complaint filed 9/30/25.