Reported by Simon Daniel Yusuph l Journalist at Weng Global
A federal judge in the United States has blocked the Trump administration from conditioning counterterrorism funding for state and local governments on changes to election administration, placing a temporary legal barrier against the federal government’s attempt to link homeland security grants to voting procedures.
The ruling was issued on Monday, September 28, 2026, by U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case was brought by local governments in Tennessee, Texas and Ohio challenging election-related conditions attached to funding under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Homeland Security Grant Program.
What the Judge Blocked
The dispute centres on conditions introduced by the Department of Homeland Security for recipients of the Homeland Security Grant Program, a federal programme designed to help state and local governments prepare for, prevent and respond to terrorism and other security threats.
According to court filings cited by the Brennan Center for Justice, the programme has roughly $1 billion available and DHS’s funding notice made full receipt of the grants dependent on compliance with five election-related requirements.
The requirements included plans to move away from electronic voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes to count votes and toward hand-marked paper ballots.
Recipients were also required to demonstrate compliance with a five per cent manual post-election audit and reconcile the number of voters who participated in federal elections with the number of ballots cast.
Another condition required states to use the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, known as SAVE, to check the citizenship status of people listed in state voter-registration databases.
The requirements also extended citizenship checks to election workers, election administrators and certain vendors involved in election systems.
20 Per Cent of Grant Funding at Stake
The local governments challenging the policy said FEMA would withhold 20 per cent of each state’s Homeland Security Grant Program award until the election-related conditions were satisfied.
The plaintiffs argued that Congress had authorised the programme for counterterrorism and security purposes, not to give the executive branch control over state and local election procedures.
The litigation therefore raises questions about the limits of federal authority over election administration and whether federal funding programmes can be used to impose conditions that local governments say go beyond the purpose of the programme.
The Brennan Center, which is involved in the case, said the plaintiffs’ legal challenge includes arguments based on separation of powers, federalism, the Constitution’s Spending Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.
How the Legal Dispute Began
The lawsuit was initially filed on August 17, 2026, by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; Harris County, Texas; El Paso County, Texas; and the city of Columbus, Ohio.
Travis County and Dallas County in Texas were later added as plaintiffs in an amended complaint filed on September 1.
The local governments argued that Congress had not made election administration a condition for receiving counterterrorism grants.
Their challenge came after FEMA announced that recipients could lose part of their Homeland Security Grant Program funding if they failed to comply with the new election-related requirements.
The plaintiffs maintained that the federal government lacked statutory and constitutional authority to impose the conditions through the counterterrorism funding programme.
Why Election Administration Became Part of the Grant Dispute
The Trump administration has pursued a broader effort to increase federal involvement in election administration, including measures dealing with voter eligibility, election equipment and voting procedures.
The grant conditions represented another route through which the administration sought to influence election-related practices at state and local level.
The Homeland Security Grant Program, however, is principally intended to support security preparedness, including measures aimed at preventing and responding to terrorism and protecting critical infrastructure.
That difference in purpose is central to the lawsuit.
The local governments contend that election administration is generally handled by state and local authorities and that counterterrorism funding should not be conditioned on compliance with unrelated election requirements.
The administration’s position has been challenged in court, and Monday’s ruling prevents the challenged funding conditions from being used while the litigation continues.
What the Conditions Would Have Required
The five disputed requirements covered several areas of election administration.
First, jurisdictions would have been required to develop plans for transitioning from electronic voting systems using bar codes or QR codes toward systems accepting hand-marked paper ballots.
Second, states and local governments would have needed to conduct or demonstrate compliance with a five per cent manual audit after elections.
Third, election jurisdictions would have been required to reconcile the number of voters participating in federal elections with the number of ballots cast.
Fourth, states would have been required to use the federal SAVE system to verify citizenship information in voter-registration databases.
Fifth, citizenship checks would have applied to election workers, election administrators and vendors involved in election operations.
The Brennan Center said some local jurisdictions could face significant logistical and financial demands if they were required to transition their voting systems, including additional equipment, staffing and implementation time. Those statements represent the plaintiffs’ position in the litigation.
Broader Legal Context
The case is part of a wider series of legal disputes involving the Trump administration’s attempts to change election procedures through federal executive action, regulations and funding arrangements.
Reuters reported Monday that the ruling represents another legal setback for the administration’s effort to condition counterterrorism funding on election-administration changes.
The dispute also highlights a recurring constitutional question in the United States: the division of authority between the federal government and individual states over elections.
The Constitution gives states a significant role in determining the mechanics of elections, while Congress has authority to regulate certain aspects of federal elections. Whether an executive agency can impose additional requirements through the terms of federal grants is a separate legal question that courts are now being asked to resolve.
The plaintiffs in the Nashville case argue that the executive branch cannot use federal spending conditions to establish election rules that Congress itself did not impose.
Why the Ruling Matters
The decision has immediate implications for states and local governments that depend on federal homeland security funding.
Without the court’s intervention, jurisdictions could have faced a choice between adopting the disputed election requirements and risking the loss of part of their counterterrorism grant funding.
The ruling keeps the challenged conditions from being enforced while the legal dispute proceeds. It does not, by itself, settle every underlying question about federal election authority or determine the final outcome of the lawsuit.
For election officials, the case is also significant because it comes as the United States approaches the November 2026 congressional midterm elections, when control of both chambers of Congress is at stake.
The dispute therefore places election administration, federal funding and constitutional questions about government authority in the same legal battle.
What Happens Next
The litigation will continue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The September 28 ruling blocks the Trump administration from conditioning the counterterrorism funding on the challenged election-administration changes while the case proceeds.
Further proceedings will determine whether the disputed conditions can ultimately be enforced or whether they exceed the authority available to the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.
For now, the ruling means the administration cannot use the challenged conditions as a requirement for the affected counterterrorism funding while the litigation remains before the court.
Sources
Reuters
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case records
Brennan Center for Justice
Punch Newspapers
