Judge blocks FEMA from tying antiterrorism grants to election changes

Overview

Updated Yesterday

A federal judge on Monday barred FEMA from withholding anti-terrorism grants from local governments that refuse the Trump administration's election rules. Judge Amir Ali of the District of Columbia struck down conditions that tied 20 percent of Homeland Security Grant Program funds to hand-marked paper ballot audits and citizenship checks through federal databases.

The ruling grants summary judgment to six cities and counties, including Nashville, Columbus, and Harris County, Texas, that sued in August. FEMA announced the requirements in June, after the administration failed to impose the same measures through executive orders and legislation. The decision ensures the grant money, normally $1 billion to $2 billion a year, flows without political strings attached.

Why it matters

The decision stops the federal government from using public safety dollars to force local election changes, keeping election administration with states and localities.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

20%

Share of HSGP funds FEMA sought to withhold

FEMA said it would hold back a fifth of counterterrorism grants unless election conditions were met.

$148M

FY 2026 HSGP funds frozen

At least that much was held hostage pending compliance, per a state attorneys general complaint filed in Rhode Island.

$1B–$2B

Annual size of counterterrorism grant program

The Homeland Security Grant Program typically distributes $1 billion to $2 billion each year.

Plaintiff jurisdictions

Nashville, Columbus, Harris, El Paso, Travis, and Dallas Counties sued FEMA and DHS over the conditions.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

People Involved

Amir Ali

U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia

Ruled for the plaintiffs on September 28, 2026

Tyler Yarbro

Director of Law, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Plaintiff in the case

Abbie Kamin

Harris County Attorney

Plaintiff in the case

Organizations Involved

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Federal Agency

Issued the contested conditions; blocks grant disbursement pending compliance

The agency that administers the Homeland Security Grant Program and imposed the election conditions at issue in the lawsuit.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Federal Agency

Defendant in the lawsuit; parent agency of FEMA

The cabinet department that oversees FEMA and operates the SAVE citizenship verification system the conditions required.

Brennan Center for Justice

Legal Advocacy Organization

Represented plaintiffs in the lawsuit

One of the legal organizations that represented the six plaintiff jurisdictions in challenging FEMA's conditions.

Timeline

June 2026 September 2026

3 events Latest: Yesterday

September 2026
Judge Ali grants summary judgment, vacates conditions
Latest Legal

The court ruled FEMA lacked authority to tie counterterrorism grants to routine election administration changes, restoring full funding access for plaintiffs.
Yesterday
August 2026
Six cities and counties sue FEMA and DHS
Legal

Nashville, Columbus, Harris, El Paso, Travis, and Dallas Counties filed suit challenging the conditions as exceeding FEMA's statutory authority.
August 2026
June 2026
FEMA announces election conditions on anti-terrorism grants
Policy Change

FEMA said it would withhold 20 percent of Homeland Security Grant Program funds unless jurisdictions adopted paper ballot audits, SAVE citizenship checks, and related changes.
June 2026

Scenarios

Appeals court upholds ruling, conditions stay dead

Likely Resolves by Q3 2027

Discussed by: Plaintiffs' counsel (Protect Democracy, Brennan Center) and constitutional law analysts expect the ruling to hold on appeal

DHS and FEMA appeal to the D.C. Circuit, which affirms Judge Ali's conclusion that the statute authorizes grants for terrorism preparedness, not election administration reform. The ruling becomes binding precedent limiting how federal agencies can condition homeland security grants.

Trump administration appeal revives conditions

Possible Resolves by Q3 2027

Discussed by: The administration had committed to the election conditions and could argue they fall within DHS's counterterrorism mandate

The D.C. Circuit reverses, finding the conditions reasonably related to the statutory purpose of protecting against threats to election infrastructure, including foreign interference. The administration resumes withholding 20 percent of HSGP funds from non-compliant jurisdictions.

FEMA rewrites conditions to address court's concerns

Possible Resolves by Q1 2027

Discussed by: Judge Ali's opinion suggested conditions tied directly to terrorist threats might pass review; the administration could redraft

Rather than appeal, the administration issues revised FY 2027 grant conditions that tie election security measures more directly to terrorism preparedness, such as protecting election infrastructure from foreign attacks. The new conditions would face fresh legal challenge if jurisdictions sue.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1987

South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Congress passed a law withholding 5 percent of federal highway funds from states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. South Dakota sued, challenging the condition as beyond Congress's spending power.

Then

The Supreme Court upheld the condition 7-2, ruling Congress may attach conditions to spending so long as they relate to the purpose of the funds.

Now

Dole established the framework for conditional federal spending, allowing Congress broad authority to shape state policy through funding conditions.

Why this matters now

The FEMA case tests whether an agency, not Congress, can impose spending conditions, and whether election administration counts as a legitimate purpose of counterterrorism funds.

2012

NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)

The Affordable Care Act threatened to withhold all existing Medicaid funds from states that declined to expand coverage. Twenty-six states challenged the penalty as an unconstitutional condition.

Then

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that threatening to revoke existing Medicaid funding was "economic dragooning," and the Court held the penalty exceeded Congress's spending power.

Now

The decision established that conditional spending has limits and that courts will strike down penalties that effectively coerce state compliance.

Why this matters now

This ruling applies the same anti-coercion principle to FEMA's attempt to make grants contingent on adoption of unrelated election policies.