Our Constitution creates a deliberate and often tense balance of power. Congress is given the “power of the purse,” deciding how federal money is spent. The President, in turn, is tasked with faithfully executing the laws.

But what happens when a President uses the money Congress allocated for one purpose—like building roads and bridges—as a weapon to force states to comply with his administration’s agenda on a completely different issue, like immigration?

This profound constitutional question was at the heart of a major legal battle between 20 states and the White House, a battle that reached a critical juncture this week.

A Lesson in the Separation of Powers: A Judge Halts the War on Sanctuary States

A federal judge in Rhode Island has issued a powerful and necessary reaffirmation of a core constitutional principle: the President does not control the nation’s purse strings. In a clear rebuke to executive overreach, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. has blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold federal transportation funding from so-called “sanctuary states.”

This ruling is not merely a victory for the 20 Democratic-led states that brought the lawsuit, nor is it simply a loss for the President’s immigration agenda.

It is a fundamental defense of the separation of powers.

The decision serves as a vital lesson that in our constitutional republic, Congress makes the law and allocates the money, and the President’s duty is to execute those laws—not to invent new punishments for states that politically disagree with him.

The Power of the Purse Belongs to Congress

At the heart of this case is one of the most essential checks on presidential power. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive “power of the purse.” It is the legislative branch that decides how taxpayer money is spent and, crucially, what conditions are attached to that spending.

The executive branch’s role is to administer those funds as directed.

The Trump administration, through a policy known as the “Duffy Directive” from the Department of Transportation, sought to usurp this authority. It declared that states would lose access to federal funds meant for roads, bridges, and highways if they did not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

As Judge McConnell ruled, this action was ultra vires—an act done beyond the President’s legal authority. Congress appropriated those funds for transportation, not to coerce states on immigration policy. The executive branch cannot unilaterally rewrite the purpose of money allocated by law.

The Constitutional Limits of Conditional Spending

The administration’s policy also runs afoul of the Constitution’s Spending Clause. While Congress can place conditions on the federal funds it provides to states, the Supreme Court has established clear limits on this power for decades. Most importantly, any condition must be “reasonably related” to the purpose of the spending itself.

Judge McConnell correctly identified that there is no “plausible connection” between building a safe highway and assisting ICE agents. One does not relate to the other. The administration’s argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, would grant the executive branch nearly unlimited power.

As the judge noted, under the White House’s position, “the Executive would be allowed to place any conditions it chose on congressionally appropriated funds.”

This would shatter the balance of power. A president could withhold education funding from states that don’t comply with their environmental policy, or deny healthcare funding to states that don’t adhere to their views on criminal justice.

The system of federalism, which allows states to act as laboratories of democracy, would be destroyed by a central government using federal funds as a weapon of coercion.

A Predictable Rebuke to Executive Overreach

While significant, this ruling should not be surprising. It follows a long and unbroken line of judicial precedent, much of it established during President Trump’s first term. Federal courts repeatedly struck down nearly identical efforts to defund sanctuary jurisdictions, citing the same constitutional principles of the separation of powers and the limits of the Spending Clause.

The administration’s decision to resurrect this failed legal strategy demonstrates a persistent disregard for established court rulings and constitutional boundaries. It represents a continued testing of the limits of executive authority, even after the judiciary has clearly defined where those limits lie. This is not a good-faith legal disagreement; it is a political power play that knowingly challenges the rule of law.