A federal judge has sided with Washington state in its legal challenge against the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to terminate funding for a program that assists state and local governments in providing shelter and services to immigrants and asylum seekers released from federal custody.
Senior U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein granted summary judgment to Washington, ruling that Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it eliminated funding that Congress had allocated for the Shelters and Services Program. The program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had awarded Washington state $4 million in 2024.
The judge rejected the administration’s position that the dispute should be classified as a contract matter belonging in the Court of Federal Claims. Judge Rothstein clarified that Washington was not seeking monetary payment but rather challenging what it viewed as an unlawful barrier preventing participation in a congressionally funded program.
The Shelters and Services Program, established in 2019, was designed to provide federal funds to help non-federal entities cover costs for humanitarian aid, including meals, lodging, and acute medical care for noncitizens released from Department of Homeland Security custody. The program aimed to address overcrowding in short-term holding facilities.
FEMA terminated the program following an executive order titled ‘Protecting the American People Against Invasion,’ issued on the first day of the current administration’s term. The agency stated that funding shelter and services for individuals released from DHS facilities was inconsistent with current immigration enforcement priorities, noting that many recipients have no legal status and are in the United States unlawfully.
Judge Rothstein found this rationale conflicted with Congressional intent. She emphasized that Congress specifically chose to support sheltering activities by non-federal entities as a means of alleviating overcrowding in Customs and Border Protection facilities. The judge stated that while the executive branch may disagree with this policy choice, it cannot use changing priorities to nullify Congressional funding decisions.
The court also determined that the termination decision was arbitrary and capricious, noting that Homeland Security failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why services that Congress funded and FEMA previously identified as serving statutory purposes suddenly no longer met program goals.
Similar legal challenges have been filed by New York, Chicago, and other cities and counties against the program’s cancellation. These jurisdictions argue that the sudden termination of funding disrupts their ability to manage the humanitarian needs of released individuals while maintaining public order and safety.
The judge’s ruling applies specifically to Washington state, vacating the funding termination decision as it pertains to the state. She ordered FEMA to consider Washington’s reimbursement requests under the program but did not mandate approval or payment of specific requests.
The decision highlights ongoing tensions between executive branch immigration enforcement priorities and Congressional appropriations for humanitarian assistance programs. The ruling suggests that agencies must follow statutory requirements and cannot unilaterally redirect or eliminate congressionally appropriated funds based solely on policy disagreements.
The Department of Justice, representing Homeland Security in the litigation, and representatives for Washington state have not yet publicly commented on the ruling. The decision may influence pending similar cases in other jurisdictions challenging the program’s termination.
Leave a Reply