Republican-Appointed Judge Rules Trump Admin Move ‘Uncons…

Judge William E. Smith of the District of Rhode Island, a nominee of former President George W. Bush, has ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to impose immigration conditions on federal disaster relief funds.

Why It Matters

Several federal judges appointed by Republican presidents have recently issued rulings declaring key executive orders by President Donald Trump unconstitutional or unlawful. These rulings directly impact the Trump administration’s efforts to, for example, overhaul U.S. election law, restrict birthright citizenship, and penalize law firms based on their political affiliations.

The decisions carry significant legal and political weight, raising questions about executive power, constitutional checks, and the independence of the judiciary—especially as many rulings have come from judges originally appointed by members of Trump’s own party.

What To Know

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, along with attorneys general of other states, led the group in a lawsuit against the Trump Administration.

“We are experiencing creeping authoritarianism in this country, and as a people we must continue to resist,” Neronha said. “Using the safety of Americans as collateral, the Trump Administration is once again illegally subverting the Congress, bullying the states to relinquish their right, ensured by the Constitution, to enact policies and laws that best serve their residents. By threatening to withhold these congressionally allocated funds, used for projects like fixing highways and preparing for natural disasters, the President is willing to put our collective safety at risk.”

The Trump administration, under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), directed agencies to withhold funding from jurisdictions that did not comply with federal immigration initiatives, Neronha said.

In the ruling, Smith said in part that: “In the end, the Court finds that the contested conditions fail, regardless of DHS’s arguments related to its authority to promulgate them, because the contested conditions are both arbitrary and capricious under the APA and unconstitutional under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

This is a developing story that will be updated.