📰DOT Moves to Restrict Transit Funds Over Migrant Transport, Setting Up Clash With States

Trump administration seeks to tie federal transit dollars to immigration enforcement in upcoming highway bill, raising constitutional and funding questions for cities nationwide.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is preparing to insert language into the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill that could block states and cities from using federal transit money to provide certain transportation services to unauthorized migrants — the latest flashpoint in the national battle over immigration and federal funding.

According to draft legislative text obtained by media outlets, the proposal would prohibit recipients of federal transit funds from using those dollars to transport individuals “unlawfully present in the United States for the purpose of avoiding detection, apprehension, or removal by Federal immigration authorities.”

If enacted, the measure would give Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy the authority to withhold funding from agencies deemed to be in violation. The language would apply broadly across programs administered by the Federal Transit Administration, including buses, subways, ferries, and light rail systems.

The proposal is expected to be considered as part of the highway bill reauthorization, which Congress must pass before the current law expires on September 30.

The Disagreement over Judicial and Administrative Warrants for ICE

One of the sticking points in the standoff between Democrats and Republicans over funding for the Department of Homeland Security has been the Trump administration’s expanded use of administrative warrants to forcibly enter people’s homes to make immigration arrests. Democrats argue the new DHS policy runs afoul of the Constitution and have demanded immigration officers obtain judicial warrants — a higher legal bar that requires a judge’s approval — to forcibly enter a home.

The Trump administration contends that immigrants in the country illegally who have received a final order of removal from immigration judges are not entitled to Fourth Amendment protections — a position many immigration law experts dispute. And several lawmakers have argued that the additional requirement for judicial warrants would significantly curtail immigration enforcement efforts.