A federal judge struck down a Trump administration rule that would have withheld 20% of counterterrorism funds from states unless they altered election administration practices, citing overreach and lack of legal authority.
U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali ruled on September 28, 2026, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) exceeded its legal authority by conditioning counterterrorism grants on changes to routine election procedures, such as voter citizenship verification and paper ballot mandates. The decision halted a rule issued in June 2026 that threatened to withhold 20% of a state’s allocation of counterterrorism funds from the federal government unless they adopted specific election reforms.
The Judge’s Ruling and Legal Grounds
Ali’s 24-page opinion emphasized that FEMA’s conditions go beyond what Congress authorized,
as the agency’s statutory mandate focuses on counterterrorism threats, not election administration. The judge criticized the rule for lacking a clear connection between the requested election changes and preventing terrorist acts. “FEMA’s conditions here — which are imposed on states and localities at their own expense, rather than funded by grants, and which address routine election administration decisions rather than the types of terrorist act threats contemplated by the statute — go beyond what Congress authorized,” Ali wrote.
The ruling centered on a lawsuit filed by Harris County, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; and Nashville, Tennessee, alongside the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. The plaintiffs argued that the rule violated constitutional principles by encroaching on state authority over elections. The court agreed that holding public safety funding hostage to force the president’s agenda is dangerous and illegal,
said Abbie Kamin, Harris County’s attorney, in a statement. Under our laws, states and localities control our elections, and today’s ruling reaffirms that.
Plaintiffs’ Victory and Federal Response
The case marked the latest in a series of legal setbacks for the Trump administration’s attempts to influence election rules. Courts have repeatedly blocked efforts to centralize federal control over voting procedures, with the Brennan Center noting that over the last two years, courts have largely blocked the administration’s repeated attempts to seize congressional and state authority over elections.
The lawsuit highlighted specific requirements, including transitioning to hand-marked paper ballots, conducting manual audits, and verifying voter citizenship—a move the administration framed as preventing fraud but critics called a partisan overreach.
The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. However, the ruling underscored a broader tension between federal agencies and state governments over election security. For example, the defendants say the … condition requiring states to adopt FEMA’s proposed citizenship-verification procedures in maintaining lists of registered voters ‘ensures that only U.S. citizens are voting in U.S. elections,’
Ali wrote. But it never explains how that condition, or any of the others, is tied to the goal of shoring up vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks.
Broader Implications for Federal-State Power Dynamics
The decision reinforces the legal boundary between federal counterterrorism responsibilities and state-controlled election systems. It also highlights the role of local governments in resisting what they perceive as federal overreach. Harris County Commissioner Lesley Briones accused the administration of using the safety and security of communities as a bargaining chip for partisan politics.
The case has drawn attention from 25 state attorneys general or governors who filed similar lawsuits, emphasizing the nationwide significance of the ruling.
The ruling does not resolve ongoing debates about election security, but it sets a precedent for limiting federal interference in state electoral processes. As the midterm elections approach, the decision may influence how states balance federal funding with autonomy in managing elections. Today’s win is the result of cities and counties standing together against blatant federal overreach that jeopardized public safety,
Kamin said, framing the victory as a defense of constitutional principles.