President Donald Trump has suffered what legal experts are calling a “very important” legal defeat—one that may not have made national headlines but carries significant implications for federal-state relations and immigration enforcement.
In a Substack article published Friday, federal prosecutor Joyce Vance highlighted the case California v. Department of Transportation, a legal battle brought by Democratic attorneys general from multiple states. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, challenges the Trump administration’s efforts to tie federal transportation funding to state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
“District Judge John McConnell, Jr., dealt the Trump administration a major loss in the case, which will stymie its efforts to coerce states into supporting its immigration policies,” Vance wrote. At the center of the controversy is the so-called “Duffy Directive,” issued in April by Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.
The directive required states receiving Department of Transportation grants to actively cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, effectively tying vital infrastructure funding to immigration enforcement compliance.
Judge McConnell ruled that the administration’s policy overstepped legal boundaries. In his order, he issued a preliminary injunction that bars the federal government from enforcing the directive and from penalizing states that refuse to assist ICE.
“The Judge entered a preliminary injunction that prevents the administration from withholding Department of Transportation funding from states that refuse to help the administration enforce its interpretation of immigration laws,” Vance explained.
She added that McConnell also denied the Trump administration’s request to stay the order, meaning the ruling takes effect immediately. Importantly, the court retained jurisdiction over the case, allowing Judge McConnell to monitor compliance with the injunction going forward.
“Of course, the Trump administration is free to and undoubtedly will appeal the injunction,” Vance noted. “But Judge McConnell specifically noted that the court will retain jurisdiction to monitor the Trump administration’s compliance with this preliminary injunction.”
This ruling marks a significant setback for Trump’s efforts to expand executive power over immigration policy by compelling state cooperation through financial leverage. Legal analysts say the decision reinforces the principle that the federal government cannot force states to adopt or enforce specific policies by threatening to withhold funding unrelated to those policies.
While the case may not yet be a household name, legal observers like Vance emphasize its broader impact, one that could define limits on federal power well beyond the Trump administration.