Sneak Preview: Court Halts Enforcement of DOT Letter Provision
(The following was excerpted from a recent Thompson Grants Compliance Expert article.) A U.S. District Court judge recently issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by 20 states against the Department of Transportation (DOT). The ruling temporarily halts enforcement of a provision in a DOT letter that requires entities to comply with an immigration-related condition to receive federal financial assistance from the agency.
On April 24, DOT Secretary Sean P. Duffy sent a “Follow the Law” letter to recipients of DOT financial assistance emphasizing that they must comply with federal law — particularly legal actions involving immigration and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), which are two areas of emphasis under the current Trump administration — and that noncompliance may lead to enforcement actions (see “Letter Demands DOT Recipients Follow Federal Laws,” June 2024).
The letter stated that it is DOT policy to “award and continue to provide federal financial assistance only to those recipients who comply with their legal obligations.” It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), which, according to Duffy, stated that the “clear and central purpose of the 14th amendment [to the U.S. Constitution] was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the states.” Duffy added that this decision “made it clear that discrimination based on race is, has been and will continue to be unlawful, except in rare circumstances.” Based on this ruling, along with other federal laws, DOT is prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex or religion in any of its programs or activities, according to Duffy, who explained that DOT recipients are also prohibited from engaging in discriminatory actions in their own policies, programs and activities.
Duffy used this letter as a backdrop for the agency’s case again DEI programs. “Whether or not in neutral terms, any policy, program or activity that is premised on a prohibited classification, including discriminatory policies or practices designed to achieve so-called DEI goals, presumptively violates federal law,” he notes.
The recent ruling, filed on June 19, by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island did not address the legal ramifications related to DEI programs. However, it focused on the concerns raised by 20 states pertaining to the immigration provision within the DOT letter that directed DOT award recipients, as a “legal obligation,” to cooperate with and not impede U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities and the Department of Homeland Security in their enforcement of federal immigration law (i.e., an immigration enforcement condition (IEC)). It added that DOT expected its recipients to ensure that the financial assistance they receive from DOT “is provided only to subrecipients, businesses or service providers that are U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals and lawful permanent residents or legal entities allowed to do business in the U.S. and which do not employ illegal aliens.”
(The full version of this story has now been made available to all for a limited time here.)
Join us for our following Thompson Grants event:
Thompson Grants Virtual Workshop: Audits 2025 | July 17, 2025 | Virtual Event
