New York sues to separate DOT funding from immigration enforcement

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXASTAR) — New York Attorney General Letitia James and 19 other state attorneys general sued the U.S. Department of Transportation on May 13 to block a rule that ties federal transportation money to immigration enforcement. The states don’t want to help enforce immigration policies or lose billions in funding for roads, trains, and airports, a choice outlined by Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy in a letter on April 24.

According to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, Duffy overreached when requiring states to “cooperate with Federal officials in the enforcement of […] Federal immigration law.” James and the other attorneys general in the suit—which is available to read at the bottom of this story—want the federal court to block that requirement.

The April 24 letter—called “the Duffy Directive” in the lawsuit and also available to read at the bottom of this story—tells recipients of Department of Transportation money to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or lose that money. The lawsuit describes that New York should get about $2.8 billion a year under the Federal-Aid Highway Program and $2.3 billion more in Federal Transit Administration grants for buses, subways, and ferries in fiscal year 2025.

That's more than $5 billion in DOT funding for New York. Every year, DOT grants total more than $100 billion nationwide.

The directive also told recipients that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs would violate any grant agreements for discriminating based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. It also told those cities, counties, and states that get DOT funds that they can’t hire any staff unless they’re U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or lawful permanent residents in the U.S.

“Noncompliance with applicable Federal laws, or failure to cooperate generally with Federal authorities in the enforcement of Federal law, will jeopardize your continued receipt of Federal financial assistance from DOT,” Duffy wrote.

But the lawsuit claims that cutting off congressionally authorized funds would be illegal, since that enforcement requirement doesn’t actually exist in any current law passed by Congress. “Once again, the administration is attempting to seize Congress’ power of the purse—this time at the expense of immigrant communities and vital infrastructure projects,” read a written statement from James. “DOT’s blatant overreach threatens to divert critical resources away from public safety and undermine projects that keep our communities connected and safe. We won’t allow the federal government to hold essential funding hostage to advance a political agenda.”

Still, according to DOT, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause requires state entities to follow federal law whenever there's a conflict. They maintain that these are longstanding legal obligations accompanying all federal grants.

The complaint warns that DOT already included the requirement in award letters for New York’s Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, its Rail Crossing Elimination grants, and its Wildlife Crossing Pilot projects. Essentially, the attorneys general say the federal government shouldn’t be able to threaten projects meant to upgrade transportation to force compliance with unrelated executive orders from President Donald Trump. Without accompanying legislation from Congress, they argue, those orders don’t technically count as laws.

Aligning with several other recent legal actions, James and her counterparts accuse Duffy and the Trump Administration of flouting the Constitution’s Spending Clause, ignoring congressional statute, and violating the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedure Act. They want an injunction from the court that blocks enforcing any immigration conditions on transit funding, arguing that the loss of such funds endangers lives by delaying or canceling safety repair projects.

Take a look at the Duffy Directive below:

And the federal lawsuit from New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont: