Category: General

On June 19, 2025, Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction to 20 states that had sued the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy seeking to stop enforcement of an Immigration Enforcement Condition (IEC) that made transportation grants to the states conditional on their cooperation with federal officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law.  We previously posted a blog about the states’ lawsuit and a similar action against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The states alleged that DOT has no statutory authority to impose the IEC as a requirement for federal funding that was appropriated for transportation; that the IEC violates the Spending Clause of the Constitution; and that, for various reasons, the DOT’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  In granting the injunction, Judge McConnell held that the states were likely to succeed on the merits of some or all of their claims.  Specifically, the Court held that:

• The Defendants’ conduct violated the APA because they acted outside their statutory authority when Congress appropriated the funds for transportation purposes, not immigration purposes.
• The IEC is arbitrary and capricious and lacks specificity in how the states are to cooperate on immigration enforcement.
• The IEC violates the Spending Clause because “[t]he Government does not cite to any plausible connection between cooperating with ICE enforcement and the congressionally approved purposes of [the DOT].”
• The states will face irreparable and continuing harm–the loss of billions of dollars in federal transportation grant funds—if forced to agree to the IEC in order to receive the funds.
• The balance of the equities and the public interest favor granting the injunction, because without the injunction, there is a substantial risk that the states’ citizens will face a significant disruption in transportation services.

The Court’s order prohibits the Defendants from implementing or enforcing the IEC, or withholding or terminating federal funding based on the IEC.  The Court also denied the government’s request to stay the order pending appeal.

On May 15, 2025, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita issued a  Letter to the University of Notre Dame concerning the University’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and practices. On June 4, 2025, he sent a similar letter to Butler University and DePauw University. Each states concern that the institutions may “treat students, faculty, staff and others differently based on race under the guise of DEI” in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) in which the Court held that race-based admissions practices in higher education are unlawful. The AG requested information to determine whether the schools’ DEI programs are consistent with the law.

The AG based its inquiry on publicly available materials and statements, including leadership statements, strategic plans including purported faculty diversity targets, racially segregated ceremonies and other practices.  The AG’s inquiry addresses whether these schools’ operations may be governed by policies that “treat individuals — including students, prospective students, faculty, staff and job applicants — differently based on the individuals’ race or ethnicity; employ race in a negative manner when making admissions or hiring decisions; or utilize racial stereotyping.”

This state attorney general DEI investigation raises new risks, at both the federal and state level, for these universities. The AG is seeking to establish a potential violation of federal civil rights laws under its interpretation of the authority of SFFA, which may have repercussions not only at the state level but also for federal funding and accreditation status where a detailed finding is established. At the state level, the investigative demands suggest that the government may be seeking to develop a case that the universities are potentially in violation of state civil rights laws as well as state nonprofit law because “racial discrimination by any nonprofit university cannot be squared with the public or charitable purposes that a nonprofit is supposed to serve.” Any state finding of violation of state nonprofit tax formation law, conversely, could have impacts on the universities’ federal tax status.

Each university was asked to provide information about their admissions and hiring practices, including details about any changes made to their practices following SFFA.  Attorney General Rokita also requested documents showing what guidance the schools provide to faculty and admissions staff regarding DEI goals. He also asked the schools to explain whether and how race plays a role in their efforts to recruit, hire and enroll members of underrepresented groups.  Attorney General Rokita indicated that responses from the universities will be used to determine whether his office takes further action to ensure the schools are “operating consistently with the terms of their nonprofit statuses and Indiana’s legal and moral commitment to racial equality.”

In separate lawsuits filed on May 13, 20 Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump Administration for conditioning their states’ receipt of funding appropriated by Congress for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) on the states’ enforcing the President’s immigration agenda.

The states claim that the Trump Administration is unconstitutionally holding billions of dollars in their share of funding for DHS and DOT “hostage” by conditioning the states’ receipt of those funds on whether the states comply with a set of conditions requiring them to assist in federal civil immigration enforcement.  The lawsuits claim that the conditions on the funding are unconstitutionally vague and violate the separation of powers by encroaching on Congress’ power to set funding requirements.

The complaint against the DOT alleges that the funding that is subject to the immigration-related conditions is “essential to sustain critical public safety and transportation programs, including highway development, airport safety projects, protections against train collisions, and programs to prevent injuries and deaths from traffic accidents.”  The complaint against DHS alleges that the plaintiff states rely on DHS funding to “prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters.”

The states seek a declaratory judgment that the conditions imposed on the funding are unlawful and prospective injunctive relief on enforcement of the conditions.  The states bringing the two lawsuits include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont.

Continuing work on areas of broad agreement, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) sent Letters to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee leaders on behalf of a bipartisan coalition of 40 state and territory attorneys general expressing strong support for continued federal funding in Fiscal Year 2026 to the congressionally-created Legal Services Corporation (LSC) through the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Congress established the LSC in 1974, stating “providing legal assistance to those who face an economic barrier to adequate legal counsel will serve best the ends of justice and assist in improving opportunities for low-income persons.”

LSC funding supports access to the legal system for individuals who may otherwise not have access to legal assistance –  including veterans, rural residents, domestic violence victims, low income individuals and others – through a network of independent legal aid organizations.

The Letter notes that LSC has been an effective steward of its federal investment, stating that the organization distributes 95 percent of its funding directly to legal aid organizations and that continued funding is critical to protecting equal justice under the law.

LSC operates a network of 130 independent legal aid organizations in over 900 offices in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.

The letters were sponsored by Attorneys General for: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

On April 14, 2025, a bipartisan group of 39 state attorneys general wrote to House and Senate leadership to express concerns about “the threat posed to the health and healthcare of the American people stemming from the increasingly consolidated healthcare market under the control of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”).” The next day, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agency actions including scrutiny of the role of PBMs.

The state attorneys general urged Congress to legislate federally to prohibit PBMs, their parent companies, or affiliates from owning or operating pharmacies, with the goal of “foster[ing] fair competition and promot[ing] choice and transparency for the American people.”

PBMs, third-party administrators of prescription drug programs for health plans created to process claims for drug companies, were originally intended to assist in lowering costs for consumers. The state attorneys general express concern that PBMs are using manufacturer rebates to increase, rather than decrease, drug prices. They are also concerned that PBMs influence the market as middlemen, raising prices for consumers, including though the use of affiliated pharmacies owned by a PBM or PBM parent company.

Momentum appears to be gaining to address the issue. On April 15, 2025, President Trump published an Executive Order, “Lowering Drug Prices By Once Again Putting Americans First.”

Among other things, that Order directs that, within 90 days of the order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, in coordination with the HHS Secretary, the OMB Director and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, provide recommendations to the President on “ how best to promote a more competitive, efficient, transparent, and resilient pharmaceutical value chain that delivers lower drug prices for Americans.” The Order also directs improvements in PBM transparency by requiring, within 180 days of the date of the order, the Secretary of Labor to propose regulations pursuant to Section 408(b)(2)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve employer health plan fiduciary transparency into the direct and indirect compensation received by PBMs.

Attorneys general for the following states signed the letter: Arkansas, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

On April 10, a group of Democratic state attorneys general, along with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, sued the Trump Administration over access to previously-approved funding to address the long -term effects of Covid-19 on elementary and high school students.  On March 28, the Department of Education sent a letter to the plaintiff states notifying them that they could no longer access the funds, totaling $1.1 billion, under programs enacted as part of the Biden Administration’s Covid relief plan.

The letter rescinding the funding had stated that “the COVID pandemic [has already] ended,” and therefore extending deadlines for COVID-related grants “is not consistent with the Department’s priorities and thus not a worthwhile exercise of its discretion.”  But the Complaint alleges that many of the areas of focus for the funding “are not tied to the duration of the public health emergency, including evidence-based interventions (such as summer learning, extended day programs, and afterschool initiatives) intended to mitigate the long-term effects of learning disruptions caused by the pandemic; addressing academic, social, emotional, and mental health needs, especially for marginalized groups like low-income students; and providing educational technology to enhance learning environments.” 

The Department of Education had previously said that the states could access the funds through March 2026.  The Complaint seeks an order vacating and setting aside the Department of Education’s rescission letter, and an injunction precluding the Department from taking any action to prevent the states from accessing the funds through March 2026.

The plaintiffs include New York, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania (through Governor Shapiro, acting in his official capacity), and the District of Columbia. 

On February 25, 2025, a bipartisan group representing a majority of state attorneys general sent a Letter to Congress urging bipartisan congressional action to address organized retail theft.  Citing gains made in the last Congress with the introduction of the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2023 and the Organized Retail Crime Center Authorization Act of 2023, the Letter explains that the legislation is needed to provide necessary state and federal resources to curtail organized retail crime and the violence associated with it in communities across the country. Impacted retailers include Walgreens, Walmart and Target, which have had to close stores and ramp up security to protect employees and stem losses, with total financial losses from organized retail theft amounting to over $121 billion. The Letter notes that approximately 76% of store managers report impacts on their employees.

Federal legislation is needed, according to the authors, because the problem is larger than state resources available.  The states seek greater cooperation with federal law enforcement through a proposed Organized Retail Crime Coordination Center at the Department of Homeland Security to address the complexity and scope of the organized retail crime problem, which also includes supply chain infiltration by organized crime. The states urge Congress to strengthen federal penalties for supply chain thefts and to appropriate additional funding to the states for law enforcement.

The letter is signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.