Federal judge blocks $1B+ FEMA election funding conditions

For legal and RegTech practitioners, Judge Amir Ali's 24-page opinion is a teachable application of the Spending Clause nexus doctrine: conditions on federal funds must be authorized by Congress and sufficiently related to the grant's underlying purpose. The court found FEMA's election-administration mandates — citizenship verification for voters and election workers, and forced migration from barcode/QR-code systems to hand-marked paper ballots — failed both prongs. The decision adds to a growing line of cases rejecting executive attempts to reshape election administration through the federal purse.

A federal judge has dealt a significant setback to the Trump administration's effort to use the federal purse to reshape how states administer elections, ruling that federal agencies lacked congressional authority to attach election-related conditions to counterterrorism grants. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a 24-page opinion on Monday, September 28, 2026, blocking the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA from withholding funds from states and urban areas that decline to comply with the administration's election administration demands.

“

For state and local governments, the immediate effect is the preservation of roughly $200 million in counterterrorism funding — the 20% that would have been at risk — without being forced to remake their voter rolls or voting equipment.

The dispute centers on FEMA's antiterrorism grant program, which distributes more than $1 billion annually to states, local governments, and tribal governments for programs aimed at preventing terrorism at crowded places, online, at the border, and around elections. Over the summer, a FEMA grant announcement introduced a list of election-related requirements and said 20% of grants for states and urban areas would be withheld until jurisdictions complied. FEMA expects to award 56 grants under the program. The conditions included verifying the citizenship of all registered voters and election workers, and requiring jurisdictions that use electronic voting systems counting barcode or QR-code ballots to submit plans to switch to hand-marked paper ballots.

Judge Ali's opinion rested on two core legal conclusions. First, the agencies did not have authority from Congress to add such conditions to the grants. Second, the conditions did not meet the legal thresholds requiring them to relate to the underlying grant purpose — the classic Spending Clause nexus requirement that courts have applied to conditional federal spending. That reasoning echoes the Supreme Court's long-standing doctrine that while Congress may attach conditions to federal funds, those conditions must be unambiguous, related to the federal interest in the program, and not coercive.

The ruling is the latest in a line of court defeats for the administration's attempts to shape election administration, an area the Constitution and longstanding practice leave primarily to the states. Courts have largely rejected the administration's prior efforts, which are built on what the reporting describes as untrue claims about widespread voting fraud. The timing matters: the decision arrives roughly six weeks before November's midterm elections, in which Democrats hope to capture one or both chambers of Congress and check the president's power.

The plaintiffs span a politically and geographically diverse set of jurisdictions: Columbus, Ohio; Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; and El Paso and Harris counties in Texas, later joined by Dallas and Travis counties. A parallel suit was filed by 25 state attorneys general or governors. For these plaintiffs, the ruling is a complete victory. "The end result is exactly what we wanted," said Tyler Chance Yarbro, the director of law for Nashville and Davidson County, who described the administration's conditions as a gross abuse of power.

For state and local governments, the immediate effect is the preservation of roughly $200 million in counterterrorism funding — the 20% that would have been at risk — without being forced to remake their voter rolls or voting equipment. More broadly, the decision reinforces the principle that executive agencies cannot use grant conditions as a backdoor to impose policy changes that Congress never authorized and that lack a meaningful nexus to the funded program.