A US federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from tying counterterrorism grants to changes in election administration.
Judge Amir H. Ali of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued the ruling on Monday. The case involves local governments that challenged election-related conditions attached to federal Homeland Security Grant Program funding.
The lawsuit was brought by local governments in Tennessee, Texas and Ohio. They argued that Congress did not make election administration a condition for receiving federal counterterrorism grants.
The case is titled Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, et al. v. US Department of Homeland Security, et al. It is being heard in the District of Columbia under case number 1:26-cv-02886.
Court Blocks Trump Administration Election Grant Rules
The dispute centres on the Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides federal funding to state and local governments.
The programme supports efforts to prevent, protect against and respond to terrorism and other security threats. The Brennan Center said the programme is worth roughly $1 billion.
The Trump administration introduced election-related requirements for recipients seeking full access to the funding. FEMA said 20 per cent of grant awards could be withheld until jurisdictions complied with the requirements.
The local governments challenged the conditions in federal court. They argued that the requirements went beyond FEMA’s authority under federal law.
The ruling prevents the administration from conditioning the counterterrorism funding on the challenged election-administration changes while the case proceeds. Reuters reported that Ali sided with cities and counties from Texas, Ohio and Tennessee in the dispute.
The development adds to a series of legal disputes involving the Trump administration and election administration. Trump Administration Election Policies Face Legal Challenges
Local Governments Challenge FEMA Conditions
The lawsuit was initially filed on August 17 by Nashville, Harris County, El Paso County and Columbus.
Dallas County and Travis County later joined the case. Public Rights Project, which is involved in the litigation, lists all six local governments as plaintiffs.
The local governments argued that FEMA lacked authority to use the grant programme to dictate election procedures.
They said Congress established the Homeland Security Grant Program for counterterrorism and security purposes. According to the complaint, Congress did not authorise FEMA to control state and local election procedures.
The plaintiffs also challenged the connection between the grant programme and the election requirements. They argued that the conditions were unrelated to the programme’s statutory counterterrorism purpose.
The case therefore raises questions about federal spending authority and the limits of agency power. It also involves broader issues concerning federalism and election administration.
The lawsuit followed earlier disputes over federal funding conditions. US Federal Funding Disputes Draw Legal Challenges
Five Election Conditions Under Dispute
The federal funding requirements included five major election-related conditions.
They covered voting equipment, post-election audits, ballot reconciliation, voter-roll citizenship checks and citizenship checks for election workers. The plaintiffs challenged the conditions as part of their federal lawsuit.
One requirement called for jurisdictions to move away from voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes to count votes. The proposed approach would favour equipment that uses hand-marked paper ballots.
Another condition required a five per cent manual audit after elections. Jurisdictions would also have to reconcile the number of voters who participated in federal elections with the number of ballots cast.
The requirements further involved citizenship verification through the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system. The plaintiffs said the conditions would affect voter-registration processes and election-worker eligibility.
Protect Democracy, which is part of the legal team challenging the requirements, said the conditions could affect election administration and public safety funding.
The dispute has therefore focused not only on election rules but also on the authority used to attach those rules to federal grants. US Election Administration Faces New Federal Policy Disputes
FEMA Planned to Withhold 20 Per Cent of Funding
Under the challenged requirements, FEMA planned to withhold 20 per cent of each state’s Homeland Security Grant Program award.
The plaintiffs said the withheld amount represented more than $200 million nationwide. They also alleged that FEMA could cancel a state’s entire grant if it failed to comply with the conditions.
The funding programme supports security-related activities at state and local levels. Public Rights Project said participating local governments use grants for activities including law enforcement training, cybersecurity and preparations for threats at polling locations.
The plaintiffs argued that withholding the funds would place pressure on local governments to change election procedures. They asked the court to prevent the administration from enforcing the conditions.
The administration has defended the election-related requirements as part of its election security policy. In July, DHS said states would need to adopt measures including citizenship verification and hand-marked paper ballots to qualify for certain FEMA funding.
The court’s latest ruling now blocks the challenged conditions while the legal dispute continues. Election Security Remains a Major US Political Issue
Case Raises Questions Over Federal Authority
The local governments argued that FEMA exceeded its statutory authority by linking counterterrorism funding to election administration.
The plaintiffs also raised constitutional arguments involving federalism, separation of powers and Congress’s spending authority. They further alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Brennan Center said the lawsuit challenges the federal government’s authority to use the funding programme to require changes to election procedures.
The organisation is representing the plaintiffs alongside Protect Democracy, Public Rights Project and the Jacobson Lawyers Group.
The case is one of several legal challenges involving federal funding conditions imposed by the Trump administration. Other litigation has also questioned whether federal agencies can attach policy requirements to funds approved by Congress.
The outcome could affect how the administration uses federal grant programmes to pursue election-related policies. However, the latest ruling concerns the challenged conditions in this specific Homeland Security Grant Program case.
Trump Administration Election Grant Rules Face Court Challenge
The dispute began after DHS issued funding requirements for the 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program.
FEMA’s funding programme had already included election security as one of its priority areas. The 2026 requirements added the disputed conditions to the grant process.
The federal government has argued that the measures are connected to election security and the protection of critical infrastructure. The plaintiffs, however, contend that the requirements go beyond the counterterrorism purpose of the programme.
Judge Ali’s ruling provides temporary relief from the challenged conditions as the case continues. Reuters described the decision as the latest court setback for the administration’s efforts to expand federal involvement in election administration.
The legal proceedings will determine the broader questions raised by the parties. Those questions include the scope of FEMA’s authority and whether the agency can attach election-administration requirements to counterterrorism grants.
For now, the ruling prevents the administration from conditioning the affected counterterrorism funding on the disputed election changes. The case remains before the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
