Twenty-Four Attorneys General and Two Governors Sue Over Federal Conditions on Emergency Funds

A coalition of 24 state attorneys general and two governors filed a federal lawsuit in Rhode Island on July 23, 2026, challenging conditions that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security attached to billions of dollars in emergency and disaster funding.

The states argue that the disputed conditions require states to adopt policies involving immigration enforcement and election administration as a condition of receiving federal money. The lawsuit seeks to block those requirements and preserve access to emergency funds approved by Congress.

The case places state-federal authority and disaster preparedness at the center of a legal dispute with potential consequences for states and local governments across the United States. The funding at issue is intended to support preparation for, protection against, response to and recovery from catastrophic disasters, including terrorism.

What the lawsuit challenges

The plaintiffs are challenging conditions imposed by FEMA and DHS on emergency and disaster grants. According to the states, those conditions reach beyond the ordinary administration of disaster programs by tying access to funding to immigration-enforcement mandates and election-administration requirements.

The states contend that the federal government cannot use congressionally appropriated disaster funds to compel states to adopt policies in those areas. Their lawsuit asks the court to stop enforcement of the conditions while protecting the states’ access to the funds.

The filing does not establish that money has been permanently withheld. It is a legal challenge to the conditions and the potential consequences of applying them. The exact list of all plaintiff states was not established in the approved source material.

Funding at stake

Reuters reported that the states said more than $740 million had been allocated to them for fiscal year 2026. The states also said that at least $148 million could be withheld under the disputed policy.

Those figures are the plaintiffs’ description of the funding at issue and may be contested by federal officials. They indicate the scale of the dispute, but they do not mean that the entire amount has been withheld or that every federal disaster grant nationwide is subject to identical conditions.

For state and local governments, emergency grants can support work before and after disasters. The challenged programs cover preparation, protection, response and recovery, including efforts related to catastrophic disasters and terrorism. A dispute over eligibility requirements could therefore affect how governments plan for and administer emergency funding, although the approved sources do not identify a specific grant or service that has already been cut.

Broader state-federal conflict

The lawsuit is part of a broader series of state-federal cases over conditions attached to federal grants. Such disputes can determine how much policy control federal agencies have when distributing money that Congress has appropriated for state and local programs.

Here, the plaintiffs are asking a federal court to decide whether FEMA and DHS may condition disaster funds on state policies involving immigration enforcement and election administration. The case therefore concerns not only the disputed grants, but also the limits of executive-branch control over federal assistance.

What happens next

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Rhode Island on July 23. The approved source material does not identify a subsequent preliminary-injunction ruling or a final decision on the merits.

That means the legal challenge remains unresolved. The next significant development would be a court order addressing whether the conditions can remain in effect while the case proceeds, followed by further litigation over the states’ claims and the federal government’s position.