Rhode Island Co-Leads Lawsuit Challenging FEMA Grant Conditions
Rhode Island is challenging FEMA and DHS conditions that could put more than $4.3 million in annual homeland-security grants at risk if states do not adopt disputed election and immigration-enforcement requirements.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha co-led a multistate lawsuit filed July 23, 2026, challenging conditions that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security imposed or threatened to impose on 2026 emergency and homeland-security grants.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, argues that FEMA and DHS cannot condition emergency funding on changes to state election procedures, cooperation with federal immigration enforcement or broad federal authority to terminate grants. The complaint presents those claims as arguments by the states; no final court ruling has been issued in this case.
Rhode Island receives more than $4.3 million each year through the Homeland Security Grant Program, according to the attorney general’s office. The state says the money supports state and municipal efforts to prevent, prepare for and respond to terrorism, including related emergency-response, cybersecurity and counterterrorism work.
No Rhode Island funding cut has been confirmed. The immediate issue is whether the disputed conditions will be enforced while the lawsuit proceeds.
What Rhode Island could lose or protect
The Homeland Security Grant Program supports preparedness work that can be difficult to replace quickly with state or local money. The complaint describes federal grants as supporting first-responder training, cyberattack vulnerability testing, search-and-rescue efforts and other emergency-management activities. Rhode Island’s attorney general identifies specialized response and other security-related work among the state’s uses of HSGP funds.
The complaint says states that do not comply with the disputed election-related requirements could have at least 20% of their total HSGP awards withheld, and potentially face suspension or termination of awards for continued noncompliance. The states collectively were allocated more than $740 million in fiscal 2026 HSGP funds, according to the complaint.
For Rhode Island, the state-specific risk is potential disruption to federal support rather than a confirmed loss. The available records do not establish that the state has been denied money or that any emergency-response, cybersecurity, counterterrorism or election resource has been cut.
What the disputed conditions would require
The complaint identifies several election-related conditions attached to the 2026 HSGP program. They include plans to transition voting systems to equipment that accepts hand-marked paper ballots, a post-election manual audit of 5% of ballots, reconciliation of the number of voters with the number of ballots cast and use of a methodology established by the DHS secretary.
The disputed terms also call for states to use the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system to verify the citizenship of people in state voter-registration databases within 120 days of accepting a grant. The complaint says the conditions would also require citizenship verification for people working at polling places or operating election systems, including certain temporary workers and vendors.
The states argue that those requirements would force changes to election systems using money Congress appropriated for counterterrorism and emergency preparedness. They also say the conditions would interfere with states’ authority to administer elections.
The lawsuit separately challenges immigration-related conditions that would require states to devote law-enforcement resources to assisting federal immigration enforcement. The complaint says DHS and FEMA were considering applying those provisions to the Homeland Security Grant Program and the Emergency Management Performance Grant program, among others.
Why the states say the conditions are unlawful
Rhode Island and the other plaintiffs argue that Congress did not authorize FEMA or DHS to rewrite state election laws, require states to assist with federal immigration enforcement or terminate emergency grants based on broad and subjective standards.
The complaint also challenges terms allowing FEMA to terminate certain discretionary awards “for convenience,” including when an award no longer advances the national interest. The states argue that the terms create vague and unpredictable conditions for federal funding that emergency agencies use for long-term planning.
The states’ legal claims rely on the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s Spending Clause. Those are allegations and legal theories presented in the complaint, not findings by the court.
FEMA told The Associated Press that it viewed the lawsuit as partisan opposition to measures the agency says are intended to protect election security and safeguard election integrity. That response does not resolve the legal questions before the court.
What happens next
The lawsuit asks the federal court to block the disputed grant conditions and declare them unlawful. The next significant developments will be the federal government’s response, any request for or decision on preliminary relief and later rulings on the states’ claims.
For Rhode Island residents, local governments and emergency agencies, the practical consequence is uncertainty over future grant compliance and funding. The state’s preparedness programs continue to rely in part on federal assistance, but the current records do not show a confirmed Rhode Island reduction or a final court decision.
Sources
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
