In a courtroom far from Washington’s political spotlight, a federal judge in Rhode Island sent a clear signal: the Trump administration’s latest move to punish sanctuary states with withheld transportation funds may not survive judicial scrutiny.
During a tense hearing in Providence, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell pressed hard on the logic—and legality—of tying billions in highway and infrastructure grants to state-level cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. “Where does the Secretary get the power and authority to impose immigration conditions on transportation?” McConnell asked pointedly, directing the question at a key tenet of the administration’s funding ultimatum.
At issue is an April 24 notice from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, warning that states refusing to align with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) risk losing access to crucial federal dollars used to shore up bridges, railways, ports, and highways. The directive, aimed squarely at 20 Democratic-led states, comes as part of President Trump’s renewed offensive against so-called sanctuary jurisdictions since his return to office in January.
But Judge McConnell, who appeared deeply skeptical, suggested the administration had issued “a rather broad, all-encompassing” directive without anchoring it in any clear statutory framework. He raised a hypothetical: if the Secretary could impose immigration-related conditions, what would stop him from doing the same over issues like abortion?
Acting U.S. Attorney Sara Bloom, representing the administration, attempted to defend the move as a logical extension of ensuring transportation system security. Yet when pressed, she conceded that some broader policy questions—like whether this could open the door to conditioning federal funds on entirely unrelated political issues—were “beyond her authority.”
Representing the states, California Deputy Attorney General Delbert Tran didn’t mince words: “Defendants seek to hold hostage tens of billions of dollars of critical transportation funding to force states into being enforcers of federal immigration policy.” He warned that the vague and sweeping nature of the condition left states unsure of what qualified as “cooperation,” making it impossible to comply with clarity.
McConnell agreed the ambiguity was troubling and said the language seemed deliberately open-ended. “You’re asking me to interpret a section of the directive—‘cooperate with us’—very differently than the administration has publicly intended it to be,” he told Bloom, referencing Trump’s repeated public attacks on sanctuary cities.
A ruling is expected by Friday, the deadline for states to apply for Department of Transportation grants. The outcome could reverberate well beyond Rhode Island, testing the limits of executive power and the legality of leveraging federal funds as a political weapon.
The case, State of California v. United States Department of Transportation, could become a major flashpoint in the ongoing tug-of-war between state sovereignty and federal authority—especially under an administration eager to use the purse strings as a pressure point.
