Good afternoon: Here are a few federal funding and immigration updates: 1. Federal Funding. In Washington v. FEMA, the case involving the termination of the BRIC program, the defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a PI (attached to this email). The defendants argue the states lack standing and their claims are not ripe. The defendants also argue they have not actually terminated the BRIC program nor terminated any grant awards, nor have they repurposed funds for BRIC or Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) and that there has therefore been no final agency action under the APA. In support of these claims, they filed a declaration, which is also attached to this email. The defendants argue that FEMA has not denied any projects under BRIC to date and that although the 2024 BRIC NOFO was removed from Grants.gov, the defendants claim that funding is still available for future BRIC opportunities. They claim that DHS and FEMA are continuing to evaluate whether to end BRIC and that any final agency decision on this matter will need to be approved by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of DHS. As a result, the defendants claim that all of the plaintiffs' claims are premature / not ripe and that the States cannot show they have been harmed. The defendants also argue the Stafford Act precludes judicial review of discretionary decisions regarding disaster assistance, and even if it did not, the Tucker Act would require the claims to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. The defendants argue that even if the court has jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' claims fail on the merits due to the absence of final agency action. The defendants also argue that the states cannot demonstrate irreparable harm if FEMA did cancel the BRIC program, particularly because the purported loss is based on money damages, which could be reimbursed. 1. Federal Funding. Attached is the plaintiffs' opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss in Appalachian Voices v. United States EPA, the class action brought by a coalition of nonprofits and local governments challenging the termination of the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant programs. The plaintiffs argue their claims aren't moot as a result of H.R.1 and that the court has jurisdiction over the claims, distinguishing California v. Department of Education on the Tucker Act issue. On the mootness issue, the plaintiffs reiterated their arguments from their reply brief in support of their PI that the basis for the defendants' mootness argument is factually untrue and the funds remain obligated, including almost $2.5 billion of prior congressional appropriations. As to the Tucker Act arguments, the plaintiffs frame their claims as ones based on constitutional separation of powers arguments as well as APA claims seeking forward-looking and equitable relief, not merely contract claims. 1. Immigration / Federal Funding. In San Francisco v. Trump, the plaintiffs submitted their Reply regarding the defendants' response to the court's order. As a reminder, the court had enjoined the enforcement of the Protecting the American People Against Invasion Executive Order (as to the plaintiffs) which directed the suspension of federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. The court later clarified that the injunction reaches other efforts beyond the EO that pose the same coercive threat to eliminate or suspend federal funding based on sanctuary policies on a wholesale / non-targeted basis. The parties then had a dispute as to the application of that clarifying order as it relates to the immigration conditions placed by HUD on the CoC grant and the DHS and DOT standard terms and conditions on grants. In an order dated 6/23, the court found the preliminary injunction enjoins the DHS and DOT standard terms and conditions as well as the HUD CoC grant terms but allowed the defendants further briefing on the HUD CoC grant agreements to attempt to identify a substantive relationship between those agreements and the plaintiffs' sanctuary policies. With that background, here is the defendant's response to that court order regarding the HUD CoC grant conditions: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69623767/166/city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-donald-j-trump/ And the Plaintiff / localities' reply: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69623767/174/city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-donald-j-trump/ 1. Immigration / Federal Funding. The defendants filed their motion for summary judgment / opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in Illinois v. FEMA, which is attached. The federal government argues the court should dismiss the claims regarding the FEMA programs that it will not apply the conditions to and that as to the other claims they are either not ripe or the court lacks jurisdiction over them under the Tucker Act. They also make arguments on the merits that Congress did not preclude the implementation of specific terms and conditions on the remaining grant programs and that the Constitution permits agencies to set terms and conditions for these particular programs. The defendants reiterate that they do not plan to apply the conditions to the disaster relief programs and that this decision is a final determination, making the challenge moot concerning 40 out of the 53 programs being challenged. The filing explains that as to the remaining programs, the Agency has either decided the conditions will apply or it is still reviewing that decision. Per the filing, DHS will incorporate clarifying language into the NOFOs to which the immigration conditions will not apply as well as into its FEMA-State Agreements that facilitate disaster relief. 1. Immigration / Federal Funding. In State of New York v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, the PRWORA case, the parties filed a stipulation that outlines that the defendants have agreed to a stay of enforcement of the new notices and rules issued by DOJ, HHS, ED, and DOL as to the plaintiff States and expressly includes their political subdivisions. The stay is in effect until 9/3/25. The parties proposed a briefing schedule that includes the defendants' opposition being due 8/11 and plaintiffs' reply being due 8/18 with an argument date of 8/20. Here is the stipulation: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.60060/gov.uscourts.rid.60060.39.0.pdf 1. Immigration. The federal government filed an amended complaint in United States v. Colorado, adding a new reference to Colorado Senate Bill 25-276, which was signed into law on 5/23/25. The new Colorado law is entitled "Concerning Measures to Prevent the Violation of the Civil Rights of Persons in Colorado Based on Immigration Status, and, in Connection Therewith, Reducing an Appropriation." You can review the amended complaint here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.243666/gov.uscourts.cod.243666.31.0.pdf And SB-25-276 can be found here: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2025a_276_signed.pdf 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.