States Sue Over FEMA Grant Conditions Tied to Elections and Immigration

A coalition of 24 state attorneys general, the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit July 23 challenging new conditions attached to emergency-preparedness and homeland-security grants.

The case, State of Illinois et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The states are asking the court to block requirements they say improperly link public-safety funding to election administration and federal immigration enforcement. The case remains pending, and no final ruling or emergency injunction was identified in the reviewed materials as of July 27, 2026.

What the states are challenging

The disputed conditions apply to grants administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The funding includes the Homeland Security Grant Program, which supports terrorism prevention, cybersecurity and other security work, along with FEMA programs that help states pay for emergency-management staffing and disaster planning.

For Homeland Security Grant Program funding, the states say DHS and FEMA are threatening to withhold at least 20% of a state’s award unless it adopts specified election-related policies. The challenged conditions include transitioning to paper-ballot systems, conducting a mandatory 5% manual audit of voting systems, reconciling voters and ballots under a methodology the states say has not been disclosed, and using the federal SAVE system to verify the citizenship of every registered voter and election worker.

The lawsuit also challenges a condition requiring states to assist federal civil immigration enforcement. Another provision would give FEMA broad authority to terminate grants based on agency priorities or other reasons the states describe as vague and subjective.

The legal arguments

The plaintiffs argue that Congress authorized the grants for emergency preparedness, public safety and disaster response, not as leverage to force states to change election laws or devote state resources to federal immigration enforcement.

The coalition claims the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing the conditions without lawful authority and through an improper decision-making process. The states also invoke the Constitution’s Spending Clause, arguing that the conditions are unrelated to the grants’ purposes and coercive because states could lose substantial funding if they refuse to comply.

Those are allegations made by the states, not findings by the court. FEMA has characterized the lawsuit as partisan opposition and said the administration views election security, voting-process concerns and registration practices as matters of national security.

Why the case matters

The immediate issue is not that all FEMA disaster aid has been cut off. Rather, states and local agencies face uncertainty about the conditions attached to future grant awards and the possibility of losing part of their homeland-security funding.

That uncertainty could affect emergency managers, police and fire agencies, cybersecurity planners and communities preparing for terrorism, cyberattacks, severe weather or other disasters. Local governments often rely on state-administered federal grants for equipment, planning, training and coordination.

The next major question is whether the Rhode Island court grants emergency relief before states finalize grant plans or make funding decisions. The case could also test how far federal agencies may go when attaching policy conditions to money Congress directed toward emergency and homeland-security programs.

Sources

• Rhode Island Attorney General lawsuit announcement
• U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island docket
• Associated Press report on the FEMA and DHS grant lawsuit
• Bloomberg Law report on the grant-conditions case