U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued the preliminary injunction after Massachusetts and California led a coalition of states challenging the Department of Transportation’s new funding formula. The judge found the plaintiffs demonstrated “a substantial likelihood of success” in proving the administration overstepped its authority.
“Conditioning essential infrastructure funding on state compliance with unrelated immigration enforcement priorities raises serious constitutional questions about executive overreach,” Judge Talwani wrote in her 47-page opinion.
The ruling prevents the administration from implementing a policy that would have redirected an estimated $12.4 billion in federal transit grants. Officials from affected states argued the policy would have devastated public transportation systems and highway maintenance projects already struggling with pandemic-related budget shortfalls.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul, whose state joined the lawsuit, praised the decision during a press conference this morning. “This attempted funding grab would have forced impossible choices between maintaining our subway system and abandoning our values,” Hochul said. “Our transportation infrastructure shouldn’t be weaponized for political purposes.”
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg had previously expressed concerns about the legality of the directive when it was first announced in January. Sources within the department revealed internal legal memos questioned whether the administration had statutory authority to add immigration-related conditions to transportation funding allocated by Congress.
The policy would have required state and local governments to certify they were fully cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including honoring detainer requests and providing access to detention facilities, before receiving federal transit grants. States with sanctuary policies would have seen their funding reduced or eliminated entirely.
Data from the American Public Transportation Association shows the affected funding supports approximately 435,000 jobs nationwide. The association’s analysis, published last month, projected the policy would have delayed or canceled over 1,800 infrastructure projects across the country.
Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who served under President Obama, called the ruling “a victory for common sense” in a statement to NBC News. “Transportation funding decisions should be based on infrastructure needs, not immigration politics,” LaHood said.
The White House reacted swiftly to the ruling. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters the administration “fundamentally disagrees with the court’s reasoning” and confirmed the Justice Department plans to appeal. “States that refuse to enforce our immigration laws shouldn’t expect the full benefit of federal resources,” she added.
Immigration hardliners expressed disappointment with the judge’s decision. The Federation for American Immigration Reform called it “judicial activism at its worst” in a statement posted to social media. Meanwhile, civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union celebrated the ruling as “protecting the separation of powers.”
Congressional reaction split along partisan lines. Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, described the policy as “governmental extortion.” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) countered that “liberal judges are once again blocking common-sense immigration enforcement.”
Legal experts suggest the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court. Professor Stephen Vladeck at the University of Texas School of Law explained, “This dispute centers on fundamental questions about executive power, congressional spending authority, and federalism – the Court may well want to weigh in.”
The ruling follows a pattern of legal challenges to the administration’s immigration initiatives. Last month, a different federal judge blocked a separate policy that would have expanded expedited removal proceedings for undocumented immigrants.
Transit officials in affected cities expressed relief at the temporary reprieve. Los Angeles Metro CEO Stephanie Wiggins said the agency can now “proceed with critical safety upgrades that would have been indefinitely delayed” under the policy.
The preliminary injunction will remain in effect while the case proceeds through the courts. Judge Talwani has scheduled a hearing for next month to consider arguments for a permanent injunction.
This legal battle highlights the ongoing tension between federal immigration priorities and local governance. As communities nationwide struggle to maintain aging transportation infrastructure, the court’s ultimate decision will impact millions of daily commuters regardless of their political affiliations.
