A coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, challenging a new rule that ties federal crime victim grants to immigration enforcement cooperation. The states argue the measure is unlawful and undermines support programs for vulnerable victims.
The case centers on the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), a Justice Department division created more than four decades ago that distributes over $1 billion annually to states. These funds are used for victim compensation and essential services such as emergency shelters, domestic abuse hotlines, local counseling centers, and advocacy initiatives.
Under the new Trump-era condition, funding may be withheld from programs that “violate (or promote or facilitate the violation of) federal immigration law,” including those that fail to provide access to Department of Homeland Security agents or honor DHS requests.
The plaintiff states contend that the requirement is unlawful because the statute establishing the OVC grant programs — enacted during the Reagan administration — contains no provision linking the funds to immigration enforcement.
In their filing, the states argued: “The challenged conditions would force these States into an untenable position: either forfeit access to critical resources for vulnerable crime victims and their families, or accept unlawful conditions, allowing the federal government to conscript state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, was joined by mostly Democratic-led states including California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and Colorado. Together, these states have received more than $500 million annually from crime victim grants since 2021.
They are seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the new rules, emphasizing the urgency of the matter since most grant applications are due this week. The Justice Department has so far declined to comment on the case.
The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to increase arrests of undocumented immigrants, particularly by targeting sanctuary states and cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Hours after his inauguration on January 20, President Trump signed an executive order instructing officials to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions “do not receive access to Federal funds.” Shortly afterward, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the Justice Department to review and suspend funding for organizations that “support or provide services to removable or illegal aliens.”
Administration officials argue that sanctuary policies obstruct immigration enforcement and allow criminals in local custody to avoid federal action. Critics, however, warn that forcing local police to work with immigration authorities erodes community trust and makes immigrants less willing to report crimes. Monday’s lawsuit stated that the grant restrictions risk “destroying trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities that is critical to preventing and responding to crime.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James condemned the measure, saying: “The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement.”
Earlier this year, the Justice Department halted funding for hundreds of programs, including grants supporting nonprofits that serve victims of hate crimes, sex trafficking, and child abuse. Some organizations warned that the cuts could lead to staff layoffs or the closure of vital hotlines. At the time, a Justice Department spokesperson told CBS News: “We are confident that these cuts are consistent with the administration’s priorities while at the same time protecting services that tangibly impact victims.”
This latest lawsuit follows a similar case brought by anti-domestic-violence nonprofits earlier in the year, challenging the Justice Department’s decision to withhold Violence Against Women Act funding from groups promoting “gender ideology” or diversity and inclusion programs. A federal judge temporarily blocked that rule.
