TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and a multistate coalition secured a major legal victory after a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration could not impose immigration-enforcement requirements on certain federal grants supporting law enforcement and public safety programs. Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued the ruling in Rhode Island on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, declaring the challenged conditions unlawful and permanently blocking their implementation or enforcement. The decision was welcomed by state officials on November 5 as a significant protection for congressionally authorized criminal justice funding.

The lawsuit challenged efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice to make federal grant funding contingent on state cooperation with immigration enforcement priorities. The contested requirements included providing federal immigration officials access to certain individuals held in state custody and notifying the Department of Homeland Security when those individuals were released. The participating states argued that Congress had not authorized the Justice Department to impose those additional conditions on funding programs created to support criminal justice and public safety activities.

McConnell, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, ruled from the bench in favor of 22 states and the District of Columbia. According to Reuters reporting on the proceedings, the judge concluded that the statutory structure of the affected grant programs limited the Justice Department’s authority to introduce immigration-related requirements. The permanent injunction prevents enforcement of the conditions addressed by the decision against the participating jurisdictions.

The latest ruling specifically addressed conditions attached to the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program and grants administered through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The broader litigation also involved the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, commonly known as Byrne JAG. Reuters reported that an earlier injunction covering similar immigration conditions already constrained the Justice Department’s ability to impose those requirements on Byrne JAG funding. That distinction is important in understanding the precise scope of Wednesday’s decision.

Davenport, who helped lead the coalition, welcomed the judgment as a victory for public safety funding. According to a November 5 report by WRNJ Radio, she argued that the federal government had attempted to use essential law enforcement resources to advance immigration priorities unrelated to the purposes for which Congress authorized the grants. Her office identified police protective equipment, drug-trafficking investigations, enforcement of Megan’s Law and efforts to locate violent offenders among the activities supported by the affected funding.

The financial importance of these grants extends beyond New Jersey. In an August 21 announcement concerning the amended lawsuit, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office reported that law enforcement agencies in the state had received more than $21 million through state-administered Byrne JAG funding from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024. The office also identified crisis intervention and youth justice initiatives as programs implicated by the federal government’s funding conditions. These figures illustrate the established role of federal assistance in supporting state and local criminal justice operations.

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown announced on November 5 that the ruling protects $7.5 million in law enforcement funding for Washington state that the federal government had attempted to withhold. His office said the affected resources support criminal justice operations, crisis intervention services, assistance for domestic violence survivors and programs intended to reduce youth recidivism. Washington officials described the court’s decision as removing an unlawful obstacle to receiving grants that Congress had authorized for public safety purposes.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell also welcomed the outcome. Her office reported that Massachusetts received more than $3.78 million in Byrne JAG funding during fiscal year 2025. The money supported local police departments through equipment purchases, officer communications improvements, active-shooter preparedness training and other operational needs. According to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, the grant-supported purchases have included vehicles, protective equipment, radios, computers and other technology used by law enforcement personnel.

The dispute developed from an earlier confrontation over federal assistance for victims of crime. In 2025, the Trump administration attempted to attach immigration-enforcement conditions to funding provided under the Victims of Crime Act. The multistate coalition challenged those requirements, and the federal government subsequently withdrew the contested conditions affecting more than $1.3 billion in victim assistance funding. That earlier outcome did not end the broader disagreement over federal grant requirements.

During 2026, the Justice Department applied similar immigration-related conditions to additional grant programs, including those supporting law enforcement and juvenile justice. The coalition responded by expanding its legal challenge. New Jersey’s August 21 announcement described an amended and supplemental lawsuit seeking to prevent the federal government from withholding public safety resources unless states accepted the administration’s immigration enforcement requirements.

The central legal disagreement concerned the division of authority between Congress, federal agencies and state governments. The participating states maintained that the Justice Department could not independently create significant new grant obligations that Congress had not authorized. Their arguments invoked the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which governs federal spending authority, as well as statutory restrictions and principles of federalism. They also argued that compelling state officials to participate in civil immigration enforcement exceeded permissible federal authority.

The administration’s contested conditions were designed to obtain additional cooperation with federal immigration operations. However, the court’s ruling addressed the legality of using the affected grant programs to require that cooperation. It did not eliminate federal immigration enforcement authority, determine individual immigration cases or establish that every form of cooperation between federal and state law enforcement agencies is unlawful. Its immediate effect concerns the funding conditions challenged by the plaintiff jurisdictions.

The litigation was co-led by Davenport alongside California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha. Other participating jurisdictions included Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, as well as Pennsylvania. The broad coalition reflected concerns across multiple states about preserving access to federal resources without accepting disputed immigration-related obligations.

Illinois Attorney General Raoul said the challenged conditions threatened resources intended for state and local law enforcement. Massachusetts and Washington officials similarly emphasized the practical consequences for police departments and community programs. Their responses focused on the relationship between federal grant administration and the ability of local agencies to maintain criminal justice services. The states’ announcements did not establish that every previously delayed payment had already been distributed following the ruling.

The Justice Department did not respond to a Reuters request for comment on the decision, according to the news agency’s November 4 report. Whether federal officials will appeal the ruling or seek further judicial review was not established in the reporting available on November 5. Any subsequent appeal could raise additional questions about the duration and implementation of the injunction, although the permanent order provides judicial protection against the challenged conditions unless modified or stayed by a court.

For New Jersey and the other participating jurisdictions, the immediate outcome is the preservation of access to affected public safety grants without compliance with the immigration-enforcement conditions struck down by the court. More broadly, the case illustrates the continuing legal conflict over the federal government’s ability to use grant funding to influence state policies. The decision draws a distinction between federal authority to administer congressionally approved programs and an agency’s authority to add requirements that courts find unsupported by the governing laws.