Democratic attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia filed suit Wednesday against the Trump administration over a Department of Justice (DOJ) rule that limits federal grant funding for victims’ services based on immigration status.
The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, lists Attorney General Pam Bondi and other federal officials as defendants.
The new DOJ policy prevents recipients of Victims of Crime Act grants, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and Violence Against Women Act funds from providing legal services to immigrants who are removable or unlawfully present in the United States, with a few exceptions.
The rule is slated to take effect Oct. 31 and applies to both current and future grant awards, Just the News reports.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said the lawsuit seeks to preserve access to critical services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking and other crimes.
She warned that individuals unable to confirm their immigration status could be denied support under the new rule, leaving vulnerable populations without assistance.
The grants cover a wide range of services, including legal representation in family court, relocation and housing aid, medical and funeral expenses and other civil legal support.
They also fund state and local criminal justice programs through Byrne JAG grants. State officials emphasized that victims have historically received these services regardless of their immigration status.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta criticized the Trump administration’s move as “unlawful” and “reckless,” noting that California alone could lose as much as $94 million in federal support.
Bonta framed the dispute as a matter of fairness and public safety, not just funding.
The lawsuit argues the rule violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause by retroactively imposing conditions states could not anticipate, and that the policy is vague regarding which services and populations are affected.
It also claims the DOJ’s actions conflict with the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits arbitrary restrictions on federal programs.
Legal experts note that the lawsuit could set a precedent for how federal agencies enforce grant conditions tied to immigration status.
Observers say the case highlights tensions between national policy objectives and state efforts to ensure victim protections remain accessible to all residents, regardless of legal status.
Nonprofit leaders backed the state officials’ stance. Pat Bell, CEO of House of Ruth, said denying services based on immigration status could embolden abusers.
“Violence does not discriminate, and neither should support services,” Bell said.
Mark Lee, CEO of Radiant Future, added that the rule risks perpetuating cycles of abuse.
Other attorneys general also voiced concerns. Washington’s Nick Brown described the policy as an illegal attempt to make service providers function as extensions of federal immigration enforcement.
Colorado’s Phil Weiser warned that the restrictions endanger community safety, while New York’s Letitia James stressed that survivors should not be turned away because of nationality or residency.
The DOJ has yet to respond to requests for comment, citing delays caused by the federal government shutdown.
California has now filed 41 legal challenges against the Trump administration in 36 weeks, illustrating the ongoing friction between federal immigration policies and state-level efforts to protect crime victims.
