Good morning: I have a couple of updates on federal funding / immigration: 1. DHS has added language to its website stating: "Not all of DHS's Standard Terms and Conditions apply to every DHS grant programs. DHS directs individuals to review the program's NOFO and/or FEMA-State Agreement to determine which Terms and Conditions apply to a particular grant." https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs-standard-terms-and-conditions 1. The parties in San Francisco v. Trump (the group suing the administration based on the sanctuary jurisdiction EOs) have filed a letter brief to bring to the court's attention disputes between the localities and the federal government regarding the scope of the injunction in that case. The injunction prohibits any wholesale defunding efforts pursuant to the EO and the order clarifying the scope of the injunction after the 4/28 EO came out indicated that the federal government may not take new actions that act as wholesale efforts to withhold funds and essentially act as an end run around the injunction. The localities point to the DHS standard terms and conditions and the Duffy letter / DOT conditions in various subagency grant agreements that are seeking to impose immigration conditions on the localities, which they argue contravenes the court's preliminary injunction. The localities argue: "The DHS and DOT immigration conditions violate the constitutional "first principles" outlined in the Court's May 9 Order. Defendants' claim that they will only apply the DOT immigration condition where there is statutory authority rings hollow. DOT has in fact already applied this term virtually uniformly across its various operating administrations, including to grants related to bridge improvements, railroad crossing studies, airport repairs, and public transit accessibility, maintenance, and improvements-effectively conditioning entire swathes of DOT funding on a jurisdiction's agreement to cooperate with ICE. See Attachment A at p. 11; Attachments F-L. Defendants have refused to identify a statutory basis to justify immigration conditions in the various DOT grants that Plaintiffs have identified. See Attachment A at p. 3. And this Court has already found that transportation funding has no nexus to immigration enforcement for purposes of the Spending Clause. May 9 Order at p. 8." The localities also argue there are Due Process concerns because they note the defendants have failed to explain how plaintiffs will be on notice of whether the Defendants have identified particular statutory authority for the immigration conditions. "Plaintiffs have already received, or expect to receive, grant agreements and notices of funding opportunity ("NOFOs") that incorporate by reference agency standard terms, or attach these terms as an exhibit. How are Plaintiffs to know whether the incorporation or attachment of the general terms and conditions is meant to also include the immigration conditions contained in those standard terms and if so, what statutory authority DHS or DOT has invoked?" The plaintiffs are asking the court to find that its PI precludes the application of the DOT and DHS standard terms to the plaintiffs as well as the HUD Continuum of Care grant terms. The federal government argues that the localities are seeking to broaden the PI beyond its intended scope by having the court prejudge distinct issues (like the statutory authority to impose conditions on grants) that are not properly before it. The federal government argues that challenging the conditions on grants would require a separate lawsuit (and cites to King County v. Turner). Here is a copy of the letter: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.444175/gov.uscourts.cand.444175.143.0.pdf [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.