"[T]he government argues that '[e]nsuring that recipients enforce federal immigration laws and policies is a rational reason in support of the agency's denial of federal funds,' Kaplan wrote. 'Regardless of whether this constituted a 'rational reason' for the Reallocation Decision, the decision nonetheless was arbitrary and capricious because FEMA's reliance on a non-risk factor constituted reliance on a factor proscribed by statute.'"
"Under federal law, Transit Security Grant Program grants are supposed to be based on cities' and states' risk of suffering a terrorist attack. But when the grant winners were announced at the end of September, FEMA informed the MTA that it would get no money because "it is based in a Sanctuary Jurisdiction city." FEMA had initially suggested the MTA was going to receive $34 million under the TSGP."
A federal judge found that DHS and FEMA exceeded their authority by tying Transit Security Grant Program funds to immigration-enforcement considerations and ordered nearly $34 million sent to the MTA. TSGP awards must be based on cities' and states' risk of terrorist attack, not on sanctuary status. FEMA denied the MTA funding explicitly because the city was "based in a Sanctuary Jurisdiction city," and all parties acknowledged sanctuary policy was the sole reason for the denial. The judge ruled FEMA's reliance on a non-risk factor arbitrary, capricious, and proscribed by statute. Related state anti-terrorism funding was also targeted for cuts.
Read at Streetsblog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]