On Monday, August 18, 2025, a sweeping legal battle erupted as a coalition of twenty Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia filed suit against the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The crux of the dispute? A new federal policy that conditions access to Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding—vital resources for millions of crime victims nationwide—on whether states cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
According to The Hill, the policy, established by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) within the Department of Justice, bars states from receiving VOCA funds unless they comply with requests from the Department of Homeland Security and provide federal immigration authorities with access to detainees. The change, announced just last month, has set off alarm bells among state officials and victim advocacy groups, who warn of dire consequences for both victims and public safety if the restrictions are allowed to stand.
VOCA, enacted by Congress in 1984, was designed to bolster support for crime victims and survivors, offering a broad array of services including emergency shelter, forensic exams, medical care, counseling, funeral and burial services, and more. In 2025 alone, more than a billion dollars in VOCA funding has been distributed nationwide, with nearly $83 million allocated to the twenty states and D.C. now challenging the administration in court. Since 2021, these funds have assisted on average more than 8.5 million victims each year, according to the lawsuit.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, one of the lead plaintiffs, minced no words when she described the administration’s move. “Victims and survivors of crime deserve support as they navigate their trauma and work to get back on their feet,” Campbell said in a statement reported by North of Boston Media Group. “The Trump Administration’s attempt to make this support conditional is as cruel as it is illegal. We’ll continue to hold the federal government accountable for actions that violate the law and harm vulnerable residents.”
The lawsuit, spanning a hefty 50 pages, argues that the new policy places states in an impossible bind: either forfeit access to critical resources for vulnerable crime victims and their families, or accept what the plaintiffs call “unlawful conditions” that would “allow the federal government to conscript state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law.” The complaint underscores that such a move would “destroy trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities that is critical to preventing and responding to crime.”
Massachusetts, for example, distributed more than $4.2 million in compensation payments to 804 claimants and nearly $17.6 million in grant awards to almost 95 victim services organizations last fiscal year, supporting over 32,000 victims of crime, according to state and federal data. The Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance (MOVA), which channels VOCA funds to organizations helping victims of homicide, rape, domestic violence, elder abuse, and other crimes, expressed deep concern about the new requirements. “We are deeply concerned about the risks that may result for immigrant victims of crime and victim services providers by agreeing to such broad immigration enforcement conditions,” wrote MOVA executive director Liam Lowney in an advisory to grant recipients. He praised the Attorney General’s office for “pursuing relief for MOVA to ensure VOCA funding remains accessible across all survivor communities.”
The stakes are high. The lawsuit claims that if the policy is enforced, hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding could be at risk, threatening the very existence of hotlines, shelters, sexual assault response teams, and compensation for medical and other out-of-pocket expenses. In the last fiscal year alone, states received over $600 million in assistance grants, supporting more than 2.8 million victims nationwide, Reuters reported. The plaintiffs warn that any lapse in funding would cause “irreparable harm” to victim services, particularly for immigrant communities already wary of law enforcement.
At the heart of the legal challenge is the assertion that the new conditions violate the separation of powers, the Spending Clause of the Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The attorneys general argue that Congress, not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse, and that Congress’s intent in establishing VOCA was “crystal clear: the funds must be used to help victims.” They contend that the OVC’s new policy is an overreach by the executive branch, imposing requirements that are unrelated to the statute’s original purpose and could undermine public safety by discouraging immigrant victims and witnesses from cooperating with authorities.
Several of the states involved in the lawsuit—including California, New York, Illinois, Oregon, and New Jersey—have laws or policies that limit local participation in federal civil immigration enforcement. According to the complaint, the new federal policy essentially seeks to override these state and local decisions, forcing them to choose between their own laws and critical federal funding for victims.
The White House, for its part, defended the restrictions, stating they are in line with Attorney General Pam Bondi’s policy that “sanctuary” jurisdictions should not receive federal funds if they do not cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Department of Justice recently declared Boston a sanctuary city, a move that could have significant implications for the city’s access to VOCA funds under the new rules.
Supporters of the administration’s policy argue that tying federal funding to immigration enforcement is necessary to ensure cooperation between levels of government and to promote public safety. Critics, however, counter that such measures are politically motivated and risk turning crime victims—especially those from immigrant backgrounds—into collateral damage in the ongoing national debate over immigration policy.
The deadline for applications for the 2025 VOCA grant cycle is August 20, with awards set to be announced by September 30. Plaintiffs in the suit are seeking an injunction to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing the new conditions, at least until the courts can weigh in on the merits of their claims. A hearing date on the states’ request for emergency relief has not yet been set, but the court is expected to take up the matter before the end of September.
For now, state officials and victim advocates are holding their breath, hoping the courts will intervene before vital services are disrupted. As Liam Lowney of MOVA put it, “Supporting all survivors is at the very core of MOVA’s mission.” For millions of Americans who rely on VOCA-funded programs, the outcome of this legal fight could determine whether that mission can continue unimpeded—or whether politics will dictate who gets help in their darkest hour.
