by Laura Glesby The New Haven independent
New Haven joined a third lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday, challenging a new federal policy that withholds security dollars from cities serving undocumented immigrants or operating “equity” programs.
The city is joining eight municipalities — Chicago, Boston, New York City, Baltimore, Denver, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and Minnesota’s Ramset County — in City of Chicago et al v. Kristi Noem et al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division.
The cities and counties are collectively disputing the legality of a new set of terms and conditions that the Trump administration has placed on Department of Homeland Security grants. The terms of the grant broadly prohibit the city from operating any “diversity, equity, and inclusion”-oriented programs and from including undocumented immigrants in city services.
The lawsuit argues that the Trump administration is exceeding the executive branch’s legal authority by restricting access to Congressionally appropriated funding. It also claims that the new conditions are “inscrutably vague, subjective, and overbroad.”
“Now is a time we should not be hiding,” said Mayor Justin Elicker at a press availability on Monday. “We should be standing up and fighting for our values.”
Elicker said that while many mayors of other small cities have chosen to avoid confrontation with President Donald Trump with the hope of remaining under the radar, he believes that “at some point, we’re all going to be a target anyways.”
The city has also joined ongoing lawsuits against the Trump administration to oppose an executive order targeting “Sanctuary City” immigrant protections and the administration’s decision to withhold numerous grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to city spokesperson Lenny Speiller, the city and its co-plaintiffs won preliminary injunctions in both cases, though an appeals court has lifted the injunction in the EPA case for now; the Trump Administration is appealing both cases. In all three lawsuits, the city is being represented by the Public Rights Project.
In this third lawsuit, the specific funding at stake for New Haven is a $93,000 grant awarded on Sept. 27 by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a division of DHS. The grant is slated to fund the maintenance and replacement of aging security cameras at the Port of New Haven, the highest-volume commercial port on the Long Island Sound.
While the city has named that grant as the legal basis for its standing in the lawsuit, the legal challenge is taking on a policy that could affect a broad array of federal security and emergency management funding — and possibly all other federal grants up for renewal.
It’s likely that “this will be a continuing issue for any grants” from the federal government, said city attorney Michael Bowler. Elicker estimated that the city currently receives “over $300 million total” from the federal government, though “a lot of that is one-time grants.”
The new terms and conditions applied to the grant include an “Anti-Discrimination” rule requiring grant recipients to certify that “they do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI [“diversity, equity, and inclusion”], DEIA [“diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility”], or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
The conditions also require grant recipients to refrain from operating “any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration,” and to refrain from undertaking “a discriminatory prohibited boycott.”
Elicker outlined multiple reasons for his opposition to these requirements.
First, Elicker said, the conditions contradict city leadership’s “values.” He identified some city programs that would likely have to close under these conditions, including city construction hiring provisions and small business incubator programs that specifically serve women and/or Black and Brown entrepreneurs. The city’s “Welcoming City” order preventing local officials from asking for or reporting the immigration status of constituents would also violate the new terms and conditions.
He also argued that the conditions “appear to be intentionally vague” to enable the Trump administration to withhold funding municipalities it simply doesn’t like.
He pointed to the language of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” for example. “Realistically, what does that in fact mean?”
Elicker added that the city does not generally assess the immigration status of people who use city services — so enforcing the prohibition against “any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration” would place new logistical demands on city staff.
And he noted that the terms and conditions would require the city to violate certain federal regulations. “We are federally required, rightfully so, to provide support for undocumented children” in New Haven Public Schools, he said. (The new set of terms and conditions itself requires grant recipients to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act — arguably a “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” policy.)
According to Elicker, the city was aware of the new terms and conditions of the $93,000 FEMA grant prior to applying in August. “We were having conversations with our lawyers” about what those conditions would mean for the city during that time.
The city has until Nov. 27 to agree — or refuse to agree — to the terms and conditions of the grant.
The lawsuit is requesting that the district court block the new conditions from taking effect.
Should the conditions remain in place, Elicker said, “we’re gonna have to make a decision” about the port cameras: whether to let them be or find another means of funding the security upgrades, either by cutting from other programs or raising taxes.