A coalition of 20 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia has filed suit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), arguing that newly imposed restrictions on federal grants unlawfully deny critical services to undocumented survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other crimes.
The lawsuit, filed this week in federal court in Rhode Island, takes aim at an August 2025 DOJ policy that bars the use of federal funds from several victim-assistance programs for legal services to individuals considered “removable aliens” under immigration law. The rule effectively excludes victims without lawful immigration status from accessing essential protections and remedies.
Background: The New DOJ Policy
The DOJ issued new guidelines this summer that restrict how states and nonprofits may use funding under three of the nation’s largest victim-support programs:
- Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
- Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)
- Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
Traditionally, these grants have helped cover legal aid, protective orders, relocation support, counseling, and medical or funeral costs for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and related crimes.
Under the new rule, however, recipients of these funds are prohibited from spending them on legal services for undocumented victims. State attorneys general argue that this marks a sharp departure from decades of policy and undermines the core mission of the grant programs.
States’ Legal Arguments
The coalition of states contends that the DOJ’s policy is unconstitutional and unlawful on several fronts:
- Spending Clause Violation – The U.S. Constitution allows Congress, not federal agencies, to set conditions on funding. States argue the DOJ is exceeding its authority by attaching new restrictions that were not approved by Congress.
- Arbitrary and Capricious Action – Under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal agencies cannot issue rules that are sudden, irrational, or unsupported by evidence. The complaint argues the DOJ failed to justify why excluding undocumented survivors serves the goals of VAWA or VOCA.
- Conflict with Existing Law – Attorneys general note that Congress has never conditioned these grant programs on immigration status. In fact, current federal statutes instruct states not to discriminate when providing victim services.
Leading the suit, New York Attorney General Letitia James emphasized the stakes: “Survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault should not be turned away from lifesaving legal help because of who they are or where they come from. Safety and justice cannot depend on immigration status.”
The Stakes for Victims
The states argue the DOJ’s restriction will have devastating consequences for communities already vulnerable to exploitation and violence. Victims who are undocumented often hesitate to come forward for fear of deportation or lack of access to services. Advocates say the DOJ’s policy further marginalizes these survivors and may embolden abusers who exploit victims’ precarious legal status.
Additionally, the states note that service providers are not immigration enforcement agencies. Many nonprofits lack the resources or legal authority to determine a client’s immigration status, creating confusion and compliance burdens that could reduce services for all survivors.
If upheld, the policy could leave thousands of survivors without access to legal protections, such as restraining orders, custody arrangements, or assistance in navigating criminal proceedings against their abusers.
DOJ’s Position
As of the filing, the DOJ had not issued a formal response to the lawsuit. However, agency officials have defended the rule as consistent with federal law governing the eligibility of undocumented individuals for public benefits.
The Justice Department has also emphasized that victims can still access some forms of emergency aid regardless of immigration status, though legal representation funded by federal grants is now off-limits. Enforcement of the new restrictions is scheduled to begin October 31, 2025.
Broader Implications
The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal battles between Democratic attorneys general and the DOJ over federal funding restrictions. In recent years, courts have been asked to decide whether the executive branch can impose new conditions on grants that Congress never explicitly required.
Legal experts note that if the states succeed, the decision could reaffirm the principle that federal agencies cannot unilaterally rewrite funding rules to exclude vulnerable populations. It would also reinforce protections under VAWA and VOCA that have historically covered victims regardless of immigration status.
If the DOJ prevails, however, the ruling could embolden future administrations to attach immigration-related restrictions—or other political conditions—to federal funding streams. That outcome could have far-reaching consequences for nonprofits, state agencies, and the victims they serve.
Looking Ahead
The Rhode Island federal court will first consider whether the states have standing to challenge the DOJ’s rule, followed by the substantive question of whether the policy violates constitutional and statutory protections.
Observers expect the litigation to be closely watched, not only by legal practitioners and policymakers, but also by advocacy groups working on behalf of domestic violence and immigrant communities. The case could ultimately reach higher courts if either side appeals.
For now, states are seeking an injunction to block the DOJ from enforcing the new policy when it takes effect later this month. Whether victims can continue to access federally funded legal aid, regardless of immigration status, may hinge on the court’s decision.
Conclusion
The lawsuit highlights the growing intersection of immigration policy, federal funding, and victims’ rights. By suing to block the DOJ’s restrictions, states are making the case that all survivors of violence deserve access to justice, regardless of their legal status.
As the case unfolds, the ruling will shape not only the future of victim services but also the broader balance of power between the federal government and the states in setting conditions on grant funding.
Stay ahead of the curve in the legal profession by following the latest developments in high-impact litigation, policy changes, and government actions. If you are seeking to advance your career, transition into a new practice area, or explore opportunities in public service or private practice, LawCrossing is your ultimate resource.
