PROVIDENCE, RI – In a significant ruling for states with immigrant-protective policies, a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in federal transportation funding from states that limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The decision, handed down on Thursday, June 19, 2025, by Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, provides a crucial, albeit temporary, victory for twenty Democratic led states and offers a measure of stability for legal immigrants and green card holders residing in those areas.
The ruling directly addresses a controversial policy implemented by the Department of Transportation (DOT) under Secretary Sean Duffy. In April 2025, Secretary Duffy issued a directive, now widely known as the “Duffy Directive,” which sought to tie the distribution of critical transportation grants to a state’s willingness to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The directive also took aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, framing both immigration cooperation and the rollback of DEI as prerequisites for receiving federal funds.
In a letter to grant applicants, Duffy stated, “Adherence to your legal obligations is a prerequisite for receipt of DOT financial assistance,” and warned that non-compliance could jeopardize federal funding. This move was seen by many as an attempt to coerce so-called “sanctuary” states and cities into participating in federal immigration enforcement activities, a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.
A coalition of twenty state attorneys general, led by California, promptly filed a lawsuit challenging the “Duffy Directive.” They argued that Secretary Duffy and the DOT lacked the constitutional authority to impose such conditions, which they described as “coercive” and unrelated to the intended purpose of the congressional funds—namely, the maintenance and safety of roads, bridges, and other vital transportation infrastructure.
Judge McConnell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, sided with the states. In his ruling, he found no “plausible connection between cooperating with ICE enforcement and the congressionally approved purposes of the Department of Transportation.” He emphasized that allowing the policy to stand would cause “large-scale irreparable harm” to the states and their residents, potentially disrupting essential transportation services and jeopardizing ongoing and future projects.
“The public interest further favors an injunction because absent such an order, there is a substantial risk that the States and its citizens will face a significant disruption in transportation services jeopardizing ongoing projects, ones in development for which resources have been expended, and the health and safety of transportation services that are integral to daily life,” McConnell wrote.
This ruling is particularly relevant for legal immigrants and green card holders, as it temporarily shields them from the potential downstream effects of states being financially pressured to engage more aggressively in immigration enforcement. In states with policies that limit police inquiries into immigration status or cooperation with ICE detainers, this decision means that, for now, those protections are less likely to be eroded due to federal funding threats.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the decision, stating, “President Trump is threatening to withhold critical transportation funds unless states agree to carry out his inhumane and illogical immigration agenda for him. He is treating these funds – funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air – as a bargaining chip… It’s immoral – and more importantly, illegal.”
The Department of Transportation has yet to issue a formal comment on the ruling. This legal battle is one of several fronts on which states are pushing back against the administration’s attempts to use federal funding as leverage for its immigration policies. A similar lawsuit is pending against the Department of Homeland Security over comparable conditions attached to disaster relief funding.
For those navigating the U.S. immigration system or considering a future in the United States, this ruling highlights the ongoing tensions between federal and state governments over immigration policy. While the injunction is a temporary measure, it underscores the legal challenges the administration faces in implementing its agenda and provides a degree of reassurance to immigrant communities in the states involved. The case will continue to be litigated, and its final outcome will have significant implications for the balance of power between the federal government and the states on matters of immigration.
