Maryland AG Joins Multi-State Lawsuit Against Federal Government Over Funding Conditions

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a coalition of 26 other states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit challenging what they describe as unlawful conditions placed on federal counterterrorism and emergency preparedness funding. The lawsuit, which targets the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), argues that the federal government is attempting to leverage billions of dollars in appropriated funds to coerce states into adopting unrelated political and policy objectives.

The core of the legal challenge centers on new grant conditions for 2026 funding. These conditions reportedly require states to alter their election procedures, including mandating the transmission of all registered voter lists to DHS and requiring states to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws. Furthermore, the lawsuit contends that the federal agencies are seeking to grant themselves the power to terminate any federal grant at any time and for any reason, thereby undermining the stability of essential funding programs. The affected funding includes significant portions of the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), which states rely on for security measures against terrorism, cyberattacks, and other threats. Maryland, in particular, receives millions of dollars annually from this program to support state and local efforts in preventing, preparing for, and responding to acts of terrorism.

The legal action highlights two primary categories of challenged conditions. First, DHS and FEMA have reportedly reintroduced immigration enforcement requirements that were previously deemed unlawful and enjoined by a federal court. These conditions would compel states to divert scarce law enforcement resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement. Second, the lawsuit addresses a new threat to withhold 20% of a state’s counterterrorism funding if it fails to modify its election laws according to the administration’s directives. The coalition asserts that these requirements would force states to abandon established election systems and considerable investments, all to secure funding specifically designated by Congress for counterterrorism initiatives.

Specifically, the contested election-related conditions include requirements for states to transition to paper-ballot systems, conduct mandatory manual audits of at least 5% of voting systems, reconcile voters and ballots using an undisclosed DHS methodology, and verify voter citizenship through DHS’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, which has an estimated failure rate of up to 10%. Failure to comply with these measures could result in the withholding of substantial portions of HSGP funding. The lawsuit also challenges the agencies’ assertion of an unfettered right to terminate grants, a power that a federal court has previously rejected in relation to existing regulations. The coalition argues that these grant conditions violate both the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause. The attorneys general joining Maryland in this lawsuit represent California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. The governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania are also signatories to the legal challenge.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

Video Spotlight