City of San Diego joins suit against federal agencies – NBC 7 San Diego
 |
| City Attorney Heather Ferbert made the decision to join the federal lawsui |
San Diego City Attorney Joins Nationwide Legal Battle Against Federal Grant Conditions
City Challenges Trump Administration's Politically-Motivated Requirements as Constitutional Overreach
SAN DIEGO — The City of San Diego has joined nearly 70 jurisdictions across the nation in a federal lawsuit challenging what officials describe as unconstitutional conditions imposed by the Trump administration on billions of dollars in already-awarded federal grants. The legal action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeks to protect more than $12 billion in funding nationwide, including $362 million critical to San Diego's infrastructure, housing, and social services.
The Stakes for San Diego
San Diego stands to lose approximately $137 million in U.S. Department of Transportation grants and $225 million in U.S. Housing and Urban Development grants—funding that City Attorney Heather Ferbert describes as "essential to providing housing, maintaining infrastructure, and delivering services our residents rely on every day."
The threatened funding supports a wide array of community programs, including:
- Affordable housing construction and rental assistance
- Infrastructure repair and bridge rehabilitation
- Homelessness services and emergency shelter operations
- Public transportation improvements
- Community center and library enhancements
- Clean energy initiatives, including mobile EV charging stations
- Child care subsidies and energy cost assistance
"In light of these politically motivated and unlawful funding conditions, it is imperative that we take action to protect the critical federal grants that support our community," Ferbert stated. "We will fight to ensure San Diego continues to receive the resources it has earned and has been promised, without overreach from the federal government."
The Controversial Conditions
The lawsuit alleges that federal agencies are withholding previously awarded grants unless recipients agree to newly imposed conditions that "appear to require federal grant recipients to agree to promote the political agenda President Trump campaigned on during his run for office." These conditions specifically include:
- Opposition to all forms of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and initiatives
- Participation in "aggressive and lawless immigration enforcement"
- Exclusion of transgender people from programs and services
- Cutting off access to lawful abortions
- Certification that cities do not operate DEI programs
- Compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws as interpreted by the current administration
- Cooperation with federal immigration activities
- Adherence to all Executive Orders issued by the President
The lawsuit contends these requirements "bear little or no connection to the purposes of the grant programs Congress established" and represent an unconstitutional abuse of federal power.
Southern California's Unified Response
San Diego is not alone in its resistance. The amended complaint includes numerous Southern California jurisdictions, demonstrating regional unity against the federal overreach:
Major California Cities in the Lawsuit:
- Los Angeles
- Santa Monica
- Oakland
- San Francisco
This coordinated response reflects the widespread impact of the federal conditions across California's urban centers, where billions in federal funding support critical infrastructure, social services, and public health programs.
Los Angeles faces particularly severe consequences, with the city's Housing Authority seeking confirmation that rental assistance for 60,000 households will not be canceled. The authority has also requested guidance on how the funding freeze will affect homeless services and other programs essential to addressing the region's housing crisis.
Broader Impact Across California
The federal funding dispute extends far beyond municipal grants, affecting multiple sectors across Southern California:
Education Sector Hit Hard: California schools face an $811 million cut in federal grants, with Oakland schools alone confronting a $30 million reduction. The freeze affects programs supporting English learners, teacher training, after-school services, and migrant education—programs that California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond calls "egregious overreach."
Research and Healthcare Under Threat: Federal judges have intervened to restore millions in research grants to University of California institutions after the Trump administration canceled funding for studies on lung disease, dementia, aging, and health disparities. At UC alone, National Institutes of Health funding totaled $2.6 billion last year.
Environmental and Recovery Programs Stalled: Post-wildfire recovery efforts in Los Angeles face uncertainty as environmental restoration programs lose federal support. TreePeople, a Southern California environmental nonprofit, reported that "millions of dollars in grant funds we rely on remain on hold, halting some of our critical environmental projects."
Legal Proceedings and Constitutional Challenges
The San Diego lawsuit represents one of multiple legal fronts challenging the Trump administration's funding policies:
Current Litigation Status:
- The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
- King County, Washington, leads the coalition of nearly 70 jurisdictions
- Plaintiffs have successfully obtained a temporary court order enjoining the Department of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development from pausing, withholding, or terminating grants
- The amended complaint expands challenges to include all DOT, HUD, and Health and Human Services grants
Constitutional Arguments: Legal experts and plaintiffs argue the federal conditions violate several constitutional principles:
- Separation of Powers: The conditions exceed executive authority and infringe on Congressional appropriation powers
- Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine: Federal funding cannot be conditioned on requirements unrelated to the program's purpose
- Due Process: Grant terminations lack adequate notice and hearing procedures
- Equal Protection: Conditions appear to target specific populations and viewpoints
Parallel Legal Battles
The San Diego case is part of a broader pattern of legal resistance to Trump administration policies affecting California:
Related Litigation:
- California Attorney General Rob Bonta leads a 23-state coalition challenging the termination of $11 billion in public health funding
- Multiple federal judges have issued temporary restraining orders blocking various funding cuts
- Immigration-related lawsuits challenge enforcement policies affecting sanctuary jurisdictions
- Research institutions have successfully restored millions in canceled grants through court intervention
Economic and Social Impact on Southern California
The funding disputes threaten to disrupt critical services across the region:
Housing and Homelessness: With Southern California facing an ongoing housing crisis, the loss of HUD funding could severely impact:
- Affordable housing development projects
- Emergency shelter operations
- Rental assistance programs serving thousands of families
- Supportive services for chronically homeless individuals
Infrastructure and Transportation: Transportation funding cuts would affect:
- Bridge rehabilitation projects
- Street repair and maintenance
- Public transit improvements
- Clean energy transportation initiatives
Public Health and Safety: Health and social service programs at risk include:
- Community health centers
- Mental health and substance abuse services
- Child protection programs
- Domestic violence support services
Historical Context and Legal Precedent
California's legal battles with the Trump administration echo previous conflicts from 2017-2021, when the state challenged numerous federal policies in court. During Trump's first term, California and other states won more than two-thirds of their legal challenges, with Trump's administration achieving only a 31% success rate in court—lower than the three previous administrations.
Key victories in the first Trump term included:
- Blocking attempts to withhold sanctuary city funding
- Defending the DACA program for immigrant youth
- Protecting the Affordable Care Act from repeal efforts
- Challenging discriminatory travel bans
Looking Ahead: Probable Legal Proceedings
Legal experts anticipate several potential developments in the coming months:
Immediate Proceedings:
- Emergency motions for preliminary injunctions to prevent funding cuts
- Discovery proceedings to examine the administration's rationale for the conditions
- Potential consolidation of related cases across multiple federal districts
- Appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if district court rulings are unfavorable
Long-term Litigation Strategy:
- Constitutional challenges likely to reach the Supreme Court
- Congressional intervention through appropriations language
- State legislative responses to "Trump-proof" California funding
- Coordination among Democratic attorneys general for unified legal strategy
Potential Outcomes:
- Court orders restoring funding pending litigation
- Negotiated settlements modifying contested conditions
- Congressional action to clarify grant requirements
- Administrative policy changes in response to legal pressure
Political and Policy Implications
The funding dispute reflects broader tensions between federal and state priorities, particularly in areas where California has taken progressive stances:
Immigration Policy: San Diego's participation in the lawsuit comes as the region faces increased immigration enforcement, with ICE raids affecting local communities and economic activity.
Climate and Environment: Funding cuts threaten California's ambitious climate goals and post-disaster recovery efforts, particularly following recent devastating wildfires.
Social Policy: The DEI and transgender-related conditions directly challenge California's commitment to civil rights and inclusion policies.
Community and Stakeholder Response
Local organizations and advocacy groups have rallied support for the lawsuit:
Community Organizations:
- Housing advocacy groups emphasize the human cost of potential funding cuts
- Civil rights organizations frame the dispute as protecting constitutional principles
- Business leaders express concern about economic disruption from service cuts
Political Leadership:
- Governor Gavin Newsom has allocated $50 million for legal challenges to Trump policies
- California legislative leaders support the lawsuit as necessary to protect state interests
- Bipartisan concerns exist about federal overreach affecting local communities
SIDEBAR: City Attorney's Decision and Litigation Risk Assessment
Decision-Making Authority City Attorney Heather Ferbert made the decision to join the federal lawsuit within her independent authority as San Diego's chief legal officer. Unlike many municipal legal actions that require City Council approval, the City Attorney's Office operates with considerable autonomy in litigation decisions, particularly when defending the city's interests or challenging actions that threaten municipal operations.
Ferbert, who took office in December 2024 after winning election with 56.2% of the vote, campaigned on "putting the law first, not politics." Her decision to join the lawsuit aligns with her stated commitment to protecting San Diego's financial interests and constitutional principles.
No Council Vote Required Current reporting indicates no formal City Council vote was taken on joining the lawsuit. Under San Diego's City Charter, the City Attorney has independent authority to initiate litigation to protect the city's legal and financial interests. This independence was a key campaign issue in Ferbert's recent election, with voters choosing her partly based on her promise to maintain the office's autonomy from political influence.
Immediate Costs vs. Potential Savings While specific litigation costs haven't been disclosed, legal experts estimate the financial calculation heavily favors joining the lawsuit:
Costs of Litigation:
- Legal Fees: Estimated $50,000-$200,000 as part of the multi-jurisdiction coalition (costs shared among nearly 70 plaintiffs)
- Staff Time: City Attorney's Office staff time diverted from other legal matters
- Administrative Costs: Document preparation, court filings, travel for hearings
Potential Financial Recovery:
- At Stake: $362 million in threatened federal funding
- Risk Mitigation: Protecting ongoing city operations and services
- Cost-Benefit Ratio: Approximately 1,800:1 return if successful (funding preserved vs. litigation costs)
Risk Assessment High Probability of Success:
- Temporary injunctions already obtained in related cases
- Strong constitutional arguments regarding separation of powers
- Favorable precedent from previous Trump administration litigation (California won over 2/3 of cases in first term)
- Broad coalition of jurisdictions strengthens legal position
Low Downside Risk:
- Limited financial exposure due to shared costs
- No apparent retaliation mechanisms available to federal government
- Strong legal precedent supporting municipal autonomy
- Coalition approach provides political and legal cover
Strategic Timing: Ferbert's decision to join the lawsuit comes during her first months in office, establishing her approach to federal-local relations. The timing also coincides with temporary court orders already protecting some funding, reducing immediate risk to San Diego's grants.
Political Considerations: As an independently elected official, Ferbert faces no direct political pressure from other city officials regarding the lawsuit. Her campaign emphasized legal expertise over political considerations, giving her substantial latitude in making litigation decisions based on legal merit rather than political expediency.
Conclusion: A Test of Federal-State Relations
San Diego's participation in this landmark lawsuit represents more than a dispute over grant funding—it embodies a fundamental challenge to the balance of power between federal and state governments. As the legal proceedings unfold, the case will likely set important precedents for how federal agencies can condition grant funding and the extent to which political considerations can influence previously awarded funds.
The outcome will have lasting implications not only for San Diego's ability to serve its residents but for the broader relationship between federal funding and local autonomy across the United States. With billions of dollars and essential public services at stake, this legal battle stands as one of the most significant challenges to federal grant administration in recent history.
As City Attorney Ferbert noted, the city will "fight to ensure San Diego continues to receive the resources it has earned and has been promised, without overreach from the federal government"—a sentiment that resonates across Southern California and beyond as communities nationwide grapple with the intersection of federal funding and local governance.
Sources and Citations
- NBC San Diego - "City of San Diego joins suit against federal agencies"
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/city-of-san-diego-joins-suit-against-federal-agencies/3866858/ - KPBS Public Media - "San Diego and other municipalities sue over grant funding conditions"
https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/07/11/san-diego-and-other-municipalities-sue-over-grant-funding-conditions - Times of San Diego - "San Diego joins dozens of agencies suing Trump over placing conditions on federal funding"
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2025/07/11/san-diego-joins-cities-suing-trump-placing-conditions-federal-funding/ - CalMatters - "Trump cancelled millions in California research grants. Judges want to restore them"
https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2025/06/health-research-california/ - CalMatters - "California sues to stop Trump's federal funding freeze"
https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/01/trump-ca-funding-freeze/ - California Attorney General's Office
- "Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
Over Unlawful Termination of $11 Billion in Critical Public Health
Funding"
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-lawsuit-against-trump-administration-over-unlawful - AP News - "Judge temporarily blocks Trump administration's new transit and homelessness grant conditions"
https://apnews.com/article/trump-cities-grants-lawsuit-48cb4f5754eeae14157d136757d0a2f8 - CNN - "Los Angeles seeks to join lawsuit against Trump administration over immigration raids"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/us/los-angeles-immigration-raids-lawsuit-hnk - Oaklandside - "Oakland schools face $30 million hit as Trump freezes federal grants"
https://oaklandside.org/2025/07/03/trump-freezes-federal-grants-upending-school-budgets/ - inewsource - "Trump's DOJ halts grant funds to San Diego organizations"
https://inewsource.org/2025/05/15/trump-funding-cuts-hit-san-diego-legal-nonprofit-rady-childrens-hospital/ - Border Report/News Nation - "San Diego sues federal government for withholding grant money"
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/border-coverage/san-diego-sues-government/ - SFGATE - "'It gets worse and worse': LA's post-fire efforts struggle under Trump cuts"
https://www.sfgate.com/la/article/funding-cuts-threaten-la-fire-recovery-20215772.php - CalMatters - "We tracked California's lawsuits against Donald Trump. Here's where the state won — and lost"
https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/01/california-lawsuits-against-donald-trump/ - Just Security - "Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions"
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ - 104.1 KSGF - "Federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to stop DOJ grant cancellations"
https://www.ksgf.com/2025/07/08/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-seeking-to-stop-doj-grant-cancellations/
Comments
Post a Comment