The U.S. Department of Justice urged a Rhode Island federal judge to dismiss a suit lodged by Democratic-led states, saying the challenge to a policy barring federal grant funds from covering legal services for unauthorized or removable immigrants belongs in federal claims court.

In a bid filed Wednesday to toss the suit, the federal government said the states, led by New York, must turn to the Court of Federal Claims to challenge the DOJ policy, which prevents states from using grant funds under the Victims of Crime Act, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program and Office on Violence Against Women to provide legal services to immigrants who are in the country illegally or those who are removable.

When parties demand ongoing payments they contend the federal government is contractually obligated to pay, the Tucker Act governs for any resulting legal action, the DOJ said, adding that meant the case should be heard in federal claims court.

"At bottom, plaintiffs allege that DOJ is failing to abide by its contractual obligations to reimburse the states for costs they incur to provide legal services to illegal aliens. … That claim sounds in contract and ultimately seeks money pursuant to the terms of the underlying grant agreement," the DOJ said.

In their Oct. 1 suit, the states, along with Washington, D.C., argued that they use the grant funds to provide crucial services to victims of crimes such as sexual assault, child abuse, human trafficking and domestic violence, doing so regardless of citizenship status. In nearly 50 years of Congress earmarking funds for such services, the states said they had never before been conditioned on immigration status.

The states argued that the DOJ's "post-hoc" conditions on the funds violate the Constitution's spending clause since it applies to grants awarded to the plaintiffs before the condition was issued, including any open JAG and VOCA grants.

The states said they had no chance to consider those conditions before accepting the grant awards, arguing that the DOJ lacked authority to spring retroactive conditions on them. They also said it was unclear whether the conditions require the states to verify immigration status and, if so, how they would enact compliance. Doing so would impose "administrative burdens" on the states and their subgrantees, many of whom aren't well positioned to adopt new practices, they said.

In Wednesday's filing, the DOJ contested any spending clause violation, arguing that the policy is prospective and applies only "to expenses incurred starting November 14." The DOJ and other federal agencies "routinely announce new policies governing federal grant awards and apply them to existing grant agreements," and states that accept them agree to these terms, the government said.

"Plaintiff states may well disagree about whether the legal-services-for-aliens provision reflects sound policy, but they cannot dispute that this term is now part of their grant agreements and sets forth the type of legal services costs that will be reimbursed going forward," the DOJ said.

The DOJ also argued that the states lack standing and that they are not facing the kind irreparable harm that would warrant injunctive relief.

In addition to administrative burdens, the states said, the very mission of their crime victim programs would be undermined by the policy, ultimately threatening public safety if those unable to prove their citizenship status hesitate to seek assistance.

The DOJ, however, said such "downstream" effects don't constitute irreparable harm.

"That prediction of attenuated harm contingent on the independent acts of third parties is insufficient to support preliminary injunctive relief," the government said.

The Office of the New York State Attorney General declined to comment on Thursday. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by their respective attorneys general.

The DOJ is represented in-house by Brett A. Shumate, Yaakov M. Roth, Andrew I. Warden and Elisabeth J. Neylan.

The case is State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., case number 1:25-cv-00499, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

--Editing by Nick Siwek.