The US Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, has previously linked the distribution of grants for transportation infrastructure such as roads, highways, and bridges to the cooperation of individual states with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, a recent preliminary injunction against this policy was issued by federal Judge John McConnell. The injunction implicates that the current administration cannot deny the allotment of billions in transportation funding to states led by the Democratic party that opt against cooperating with immigration enforcement.
This ruling was given on Thursday by Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell, based in Providence, R.I. In response to a lawsuit lodged by 20 states, he provisionally issued an injunction, expressing that without it a significant scale of permanent damage could potentially occur. The Department of Transportation, unfortunately, was not available for comments during late Thursday on the ruling.
Of note is the proximity of this ruling to the grant application submission deadline for states, which is slated for June 20. It was prior to this deadline that the Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, attached conditions to this funding. The conditions stipulated applications to agree to comply with an Immigration Enforcement Condition upon submission.
Sean Duffy conveyed his anticipations regarding immigration enforcement in an April correspondence to the grant applications. The essence of the letter was that adherence to legal commitments is necessary to be the beneficiary of Department of Transportation’s financial aid. Furthermore, he warned that failure to comply with federal law or a lack of cooperation with federal authorities could put federal funding at risk.
Sean Duffy was clear and direct while expressing the reasoning behind such decisions. Through an official statement released concurrently with the letter, he conveyed that it should be a given that federal grants come with the clear stipulation of sticking to federal laws. He added that it should not be a point of contention to uphold our immigration laws and safeguard free speech.
He further emphasized that these values are greeted by the majority of American public and asserted his readiness to intervene to safeguard their compliance. On this notion, he has received backlash in the form of a lawsuit filed by twenty Democratic state attorneys general against the so-called ‘Duffy Directive.’
The Democratic state attorneys general opposing this stipulation denounced the ‘Duffy Directive.’ Their claim against Duffy stated that he was overstepping his bounds by imposing such terms, labeling them coercive and incongruent with the intended usage of transportation funding approved by Congress, which is designed for the upkeep and safety of roads, highways, bridges, and the development of other transportation projects.
On Thursday, Judge McConnell, appointed under President Barack Obama’s administration, ruled in favor of these states. In his decision, he agreed with the states’ argument and underlined that the Government failed to establish a credible link between states’ cooperation with ICE enforcement activities and the objectives set by Congress for the Department of Transportation grants.
McConnell elaborated that the public interest leans towards the necessity of an injunction. His reasoning is based on the risk that, without an injunction, the states along with their citizenry will face disturbances in transportation services, endangering not just ongoing projects but also those in development.
These disruptions could affect projects for which resources have already been expended – posing a significant risk to not just the projects themselves, but also to the overall health and safety of the transportation services that form an integral part of the citizens’ daily life.