On August 18, 2025, a new legal battle erupted as state attorneys general from Illinois, Oregon, and twenty other states joined forces in a sweeping lawsuit aimed at blocking the Trump administration from withholding critical federal funding for crime victims. At the heart of the dispute lies the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), a 1984 law designed to provide support for survivors of violent crime, and the Trump administration’s insistence that states comply with federal immigration enforcement as a condition for receiving these funds.
According to Capitol News Illinois, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul announced his state’s participation in the lawsuit during a Monday news conference, underscoring the urgency of the situation. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, challenges what the states describe as “unlawful conditions” imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on the distribution of VOCA funds. For the current federal fiscal year, more than $1.3 billion in VOCA funding is available nationwide, with Illinois alone slated to receive about $54 million. The stakes are similarly high in Oregon, where 146 service providers depend on VOCA money, and the potential loss is pegged at $15 million if the state refuses to comply with federal demands, as reported by Oregon Capital Chronicle.
VOCA funds play a pivotal role in supporting a broad range of victim services—everything from advocacy and emergency shelters to medical costs, funeral expenses, crime scene cleanup, and sexual assault forensic exams. As Raoul’s office explained, these grants are distributed based on a statutory formula that has nothing to do with immigration policy. Yet, the Trump administration’s July 21, 2025, Notice of Funding Opportunity introduced new hurdles. The notice declared that VOCA funds could not be used for any “program or activity that, directly or indirectly, violates (or promotes or facilitates the violation of) federal immigration law … or impedes or hinders the enforcement of federal immigration law.”
For states like Illinois and Oregon, which have enacted so-called “sanctuary” policies, these conditions are more than a bureaucratic inconvenience. Illinois’ 2017 TRUST Act, for example, prohibits state and local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration agents in enforcement operations, including barring access to detainees and withholding nonpublic information about release dates. Similarly, Oregon has a long-standing sanctuary law dating back to 1987, making it the first state in the nation to prohibit state and local police from helping federal authorities with immigration enforcement.
The lawsuit, which is part of the broader case New Jersey v. U.S. Department of Justice, argues that the Trump administration’s new funding conditions violate the federal Administrative Procedures Act, exceed the DOJ’s legal authority, and run afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s spending clause and separation of powers doctrine. The states are asking the court to permanently block the enforcement of these conditions, asserting that the federal government is overstepping its bounds by tying unrelated immigration policy to victim assistance funding.
Attorney General Raoul minced no words in his criticism of the administration’s approach. “Conditioning that vital funding on cooperation with immigration enforcement is not just unlawful, it is immoral,” he said, as quoted by Capitol News Illinois. “VOCA funds have no relationship to civil immigration policy. In fact, grants are distributed based on a statutory formula that has nothing to do with immigration.”
Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield echoed these concerns during his own Monday press conference. “The federal administration has tried to use victims of crime as a political pawn to carry out an incredibly unpopular political agenda,” Rayfield stated, according to Oregon Capital Chronicle. He emphasized that the fight is about keeping shelters and services open for survivors and victims, not about immigration enforcement. “That means turning people away, that means delaying safety, and every delay can mean danger. It will erode trust, and it will cost lives,” said Melissa Erlbaum, Executive Director of Clackamas Women’s Services, highlighting the real-world consequences of the funding cuts. Her organization has already laid off 17 staff members in 2025 due to earlier reductions and anticipates more layoffs depending on the lawsuit’s outcome.
The impact of these funding threats is not theoretical. Oregon service providers had already faced a staggering 40% cut in federal VOCA funds during the 2024 fiscal year, as reported by the Oregon Law Center. The prospect of further reductions has left organizations scrambling to maintain services for some of the state’s most vulnerable residents. “Today, we face the reality of future reductions,” Erlbaum warned. “Every delay can mean danger.”
For the Trump administration, the rationale is rooted in federal law. The July 21 notice points to a statute that prohibits state and local governments from restricting communication with federal immigration officials. By requiring states to comply, the DOJ argues, they are simply enforcing existing law and ensuring that federal immigration enforcement is not hindered by local policies. Yet, critics argue that this approach effectively weaponizes funding intended for crime victims, forcing states to choose between upholding their sanctuary laws and providing essential services.
The legal challenge is just the latest in a series of clashes between the Trump administration and states with sanctuary policies. According to Capitol News Illinois, Attorney General Raoul has joined 35 similar lawsuits challenging Trump administration policies since the president resumed office in January 2025—an average of more than one suit per week. For Oregon’s Rayfield, the New Jersey v. U.S. Department of Justice case marks his 37th lawsuit against the federal government since Trump took office.
Behind the legal arguments are deeply held beliefs about the role of state and local governments in immigration enforcement and the federal government’s power to set conditions on funding. Supporters of the Trump administration’s stance argue that cooperation with federal immigration authorities is essential for public safety and the rule of law. Opponents counter that tying unrelated victim support funding to immigration policy undermines the very purpose of VOCA and puts vulnerable communities at risk.
As the legal process unfolds, the fate of billions in federal funding—and the services that depend on it—hangs in the balance. Service providers in Illinois, Oregon, and across the nation are bracing for the possibility of further cuts, layoffs, and the painful prospect of turning away those in need. For now, the courtroom will decide whether the federal government can use the purse strings of victim support to enforce its immigration agenda, or whether states will retain the autonomy to uphold their own laws while caring for crime victims.
The outcome of this battle will not only shape the future of VOCA funding but will also test the boundaries of federal and state power in one of the nation’s most contentious policy arenas.
