Good afternoon: This is a reminder that we have a federal funding call tomorrow at 3 pm eastern. You should have a calendar invite with the zoom link, but you can also access it here: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87355795810 I have a couple of updates on federal funding (#2 also implicates DEI and Immigration): 1. A coalition of states sued FEMA today in State of Washington v. FEMA, in federal district court in Massachusetts. The complaint centers on the Trump administration's termination of the BRIC - Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities - program. Congress has funded BRIC for pre-disaster mitigation purposes for decades. The complaint alleges that the BRIC termination violates the separation of powers and is "directly contrary to Congress's statutory direction that Defendants must prioritize mitigation and are specifically barred from substantially reducing FEMA's mitigation functions." Before it was shut down, the complaint explains that BRIC was poised to fund things like floodwalls, levees, pump stations, saferooms for tornados, evacuation towers to escape tsunamis, soil remediation to protect against landslides, among many other resiliency projects. The complaint also explains that BRIC has been used to fund projects in every state in the past 4 years alone has funded nearly 2,000 projects with $4.5 billion in funding and that for every $1 spent on mitigation, studies have shown that the government has saved $3 on post-disaster recovery. Congress has appropriated $1 billion toward BRIC, which is at issue in this lawsuit. According to the Complaint, Cameron Hamilton, who was a "Senior Official Performing Duties of FEMA Administrator," sent a memo directing the termination of the BRIC program. The States allege that the Defendants announced that FEMA would not spend the $1 billion appropriated by Congress and stated they would return $882 million to the US Treasury. The Complaint also alleges that FEMA had diverted over $ billion out of the FEMA mitigation fund and into the major declarations component of FEMA's disaster relief fund. The States argue that both actions were unlawful. The States are seeking to compel FEMA to reverse the termination of the BRIC program. They allege violations of the separation of powers, the APA, appropriations clause, spending clause, appointments clause (because Mr. Hamilton was not the lawfully acting FEMA Administrator). Here is a copy of the complaint: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25999920/femasuit.pdf 1. I am also attaching the complaint in City of Tucson v. Turner, which is a lawsuit filed on 6/27/25 related to the Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative for Community Enhancement (PRICE) and the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO) grants, both of which are administered by HUD to help alleviate housing insecurity and homelessness. Tucson executed grant agreements with HUD in January 2025 but has not received the funds under the agreements. Per the Complaint, HUD is seeking to require Tucson to sign amendments to the agreements related to various Executive Orders signed by President Trump which were not in the original NOFOs or Grant Agreements. Tucson argues Congress did not impose the conditions HUD seeks to impose in the authorizing legislation creating the PRICE and PRO grants, nor did Congress delegate to the President or HUD the ability to impose such conditions (nor are the conditions in the agreements that were executed). The conditions HUD sought to add via amendment included: "prohibitions on the promotion of "gender ideology" (the "Anti-Transgender Condition")8 U.S.C. 1601-1646) ("PRWORA"), "Executive Order 14218, or other Executive Orders or immigration laws" (the "Future Directions 1 and elective abortions (the "Anti-Abortion Condition")2; a broad (not funding specific) certification of compliance with all Federal anti-discrimination laws (the "Anti-Discrimination Condition")3; an agreement that this certification is material to HUD's payment decisions for purposes of liability under the False Claims Act (the "FCA Condition")4; an open-ended obligation to comply with any future direction from HUD, the Attorney General, or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services related to compliance with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1601-1646) ("PRWORA"), "Executive Order 14218, or other Executive Orders or immigration laws" (the "Future Directions (Condition")5, and a provision prohibiting a jurisdiction from using funding "in a manner that by design or effect facilities the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation" (the "Sanctuary Condition")6 (collectively, together with the E.O. Condition, the "Conditions")." The Complaint alleges the amendment seeking to impose the conditions violate the separation of powers and spending clause. Tucson seeks an order declaring the Amendment to be unlawful and enforceable and enjoining HUD from conditioning the already awarded PRICE and PRO funds on the new conditions. Please continue to send over your updates and we'll get them out to the group. Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.