Under the terms of the injunction, federal agencies are now barred from enforcing the “Immigration Enforcement Condition” as outlined in the Duffy Directive. This means the Trump administration—and, by extension, the Department of Transportation—cannot withhold or threaten to withdraw infrastructure funds based solely on a state’s immigration enforcement posture unless expressly authorized by statute.
“The defendants are prohibited from taking adverse action against any state entity or local jurisdiction, including barring it from receiving or making it ineligible for federal funding,” the ruling states. “The Court forbids and enjoins any attempt to implement the Immigration Enforcement Condition.”
The lawsuit was rooted in President Trump’s 2017 executive order, signed during his first day in office, which sought to penalize so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” by cutting off federal funds. Over the years, the administration had renewed its push to enforce that order across different departments, most recently through Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.
Secretary Duffy, who testified before Congress earlier this year about the department’s 2026 fiscal year budget, has repeatedly warned that states and cities defying ICE should not expect financial support. On Monday, he doubled down on that position, saying, “The USDOT will not fund rogue state actors who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. And to cities that stand by while rioters destroy transportation infrastructure — don’t expect a red cent from DOT, either.”
His remarks were widely seen as targeting California and other sanctuary states that have distanced themselves from federal immigration crackdowns amid ongoing unrest in major cities like Los Angeles.
Duffy has also framed the dispute in ideological terms, accusing sanctuary states of embracing anti-American DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies and refusing to uphold core American values.
“It shouldn’t be controversial – enforce our immigration rules, end anti-American DEI policies, and protect free speech,” Duffy said in April. “These values reflect the priorities of the American people, and I will take action to ensure compliance.”
Critics, however, argue that the administration’s attempt to tie infrastructure funding to immigration compliance is not only legally dubious but undermines the independence of state and local governance. Thursday’s ruling marks the second major judicial setback in recent months for federal attempts to condition funding on ideological or political compliance.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for a response to the ruling. As of now, no official comment has been provided.
The court’s decision signals a broader judicial resistance to executive efforts that bypass congressional authority in distributing federal funds. For now, states labeled as sanctuary jurisdictions can continue to access federal transportation funding without the threat of politically motivated retribution.