Twenty-six jurisdictions challenge FY2026 FEMA grant conditions
Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia are asking a federal judge in Rhode Island to block the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security from attaching election- and immigration-related conditions to current emergency-preparedness grants.
The lawsuit was filed July 23, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The plaintiffs include 24 attorneys general and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. They say the disputed terms improperly use federal public-safety funding to pressure states to adopt policies outside the purposes of the grant programs.
More than $740 million in grants is at issue
The complaint says the plaintiff jurisdictions have been allocated more than $740 million in fiscal-year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program funds. The states allege that at least 20% of those awards — about $148 million — could be withheld under challenged election-related conditions. They also allege that entire awards could be terminated for continued noncompliance.
Those allegations concern the states’ account of the grant terms and have not been resolved by the court. The filing does not establish that funds have already been withheld from every plaintiff or program.
The grants support first responders, bomb squads, cybersecurity, disaster planning, search and rescue, infrastructure protection and mutual-aid networks that allow police, fire and emergency crews to assist other jurisdictions during a crisis.
The complaint describes state uses including communications systems, cybersecurity training, special operations teams and coordination among emergency agencies. The states say some of those programs could be reduced or eliminated without federal support.
What the states are challenging
The lawsuit challenges election-related terms that the complaint describes as requiring states to verify voter citizenship through a federal system, move toward hand-marked paper ballots and conduct post-election audits under guidelines to be established by the DHS secretary.
The states also challenge immigration-related terms in fiscal-year 2026 standard grant conditions. The complaint says DHS and FEMA were still considering whether to apply those terms to programs including the Homeland Security Grant Program and the Emergency Management Performance Grant. That means the filing does not establish that every grant agreement already contains the immigration provisions.
A separate set of terms would allow FEMA to terminate discretionary awards “for convenience,” including when the agency concludes that an award no longer advances the national interest. The states argue that the language would make multiyear emergency funding less predictable and give FEMA broad discretion to end grants after they have been awarded.
FEMA says the election requirements protect integrity
FEMA has characterized the lawsuit as partisan opposition to measures intended to protect election security. In statements reported by CBS News, the agency said states must take what it called common-sense steps to protect U.S. elections before receiving their full Homeland Security Grant Program awards.
The federal government has not agreed that the conditions are unlawful. The states’ claims remain unadjudicated, and the challenged terms have not been invalidated by a court in this case.
The legal dispute
The states allege that FEMA and DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing major new conditions without adequate legal authority or reasoned decision-making. They also argue that the Constitution’s Spending Clause limits the federal government’s ability to attach coercive or unrelated conditions to money appropriated by Congress.
In plain terms, the dispute is over whether federal agencies may use emergency-preparedness grants to require states to change election administration, assist with federal immigration enforcement or accept broad termination provisions that are not clearly tied to the underlying public-safety programs.
The complaint asks the court for declaratory and injunctive relief that would block the challenged terms and require the agencies to issue funding documents without them.
Why the earlier Rhode Island case matters
The case follows earlier litigation in the same Rhode Island court over immigration-related conditions and reductions to homeland-security funding. The states cite that litigation as background for their argument that similar conditions were already found unlawful or blocked. A May 7, 2026 statement from the Rhode Island attorney general said the coalition had protected critical homeland-security funding in that earlier dispute.
The new case is separate. It concerns fiscal-year 2026 grant conditions, including election-related requirements and broader agency-discretion language, and it still awaits a ruling.
What to watch next
The immediate next step is action by the Rhode Island federal court on the states’ requests for relief. Court orders and the final language of individual grant agreements will help determine which conditions apply, whether funds are delayed or reduced, and how much discretion FEMA retains over multiyear awards.
Residents are unlikely to see an immediate change in emergency services solely because the lawsuit was filed. But prolonged uncertainty could affect state and local planning for staffing, equipment, cybersecurity, disaster preparation and mutual-aid programs if funding is delayed or reduced.
Sources
- Complaint filed in Illinois et al. v. FEMA
- CBS News report on the lawsuit
- Associated Press report on the lawsuit
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.