More than two dozen US states and the District of Columbia filed a legal challenge on Thursday against the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), alleging that the Trump administration is imposing unlawful conditions on billions of dollars in disaster preparedness and homeland security grants. The complaint, lodged at a federal court in Rhode Island, contests demands that states verify voter citizenship against a federal database, adopt hand-marked paper ballots, carry out federally prescribed election audits, and cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The administration also reserved the right to cancel grants that diverge from its shifting priorities or “national interest”, the filing states.

The plaintiff states—led by Democratic attorneys general from California, Illinois, New York and others, and including the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania—argue the conditions contravene both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s Spending Clause. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the grants help communities prepare for emergencies before disaster strikes, enabling emergency management personnel and improving coordination among first responders. Withholding them, he contends, would leave fewer resources for wildfires, floods and terrorist threats. The coalition estimates that FEMA could withhold at least 20 per cent of Homeland Security Grant Program awards from the plaintiff states, amounting to roughly $148 million, and potentially terminate entire awards for continued non-compliance.

A FEMA spokesperson dismissed the lawsuit as ‘partisan pushback’ from left-leaning states, asserting that the new requirements are common-sense protections for election security. In a parallel move, the US Department of Justice sued Colorado on Thursday over state laws that provide in-state tuition and financial aid at public colleges to residents lacking lawful immigration status. The complaint argues these benefits, which are not equally offered to all US citizens, violate a 1996 federal law that bars states from granting higher education advantages based on residency to undocumented individuals. Colorado has broadened eligibility by shortening the required high school attendance period and removing a mandate that students attest to having applied for legal status, according to the filing.

Viewed from state capitals, both initiatives represent an attempt by Washington to use funding leverage to compel policy concessions that Congress did not explicitly authorize. Last year, a federal judge blocked a similar effort to condition transportation funds on immigration enforcement, writing that states would otherwise face billions in lost funds and project cancellations. Thursday’s suit seeks a nationwide order voiding the grant conditions for the plaintiffs and requiring the agencies to issue funding documents. The Colorado case, meanwhile, is the fourteenth filed by the Trump Justice Department challenging in-state tuition for undocumented students, bringing fresh legal scrutiny to the scope of the federal government’s authority over state education benefits.