A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from enforcing conditions that would have required cities to pledge against diversity programs in order to receive community policing grants, ruling that the Department of Justice lacked statutory authority for such restrictions.
U.S. District Judge James Donato issued the ruling Wednesday, finding that the DOJ had no legal basis to tie anti-diversity, equity and inclusion requirements to federal community policing grants. The decision affects nearly $8 million in funding for San Francisco, Tucson, San Diego and Santa Clara County, which had refused to accept the federal government's terms.
The case arose after San Francisco's police department, facing a 30% officer shortage and an $800 million budget deficit, learned it had been approved for a $6.25 million federal grant last fall. However, the city discovered that receiving the money would require promising not to run any diversity programs, agreeing to follow all presidential executive orders, and certifying that funds would not go toward promoting what the administration termed "gender ideology" or protecting governments that failed to stop vandalism of public monuments.
"Where then does the government find statutory authority to impose conditions on local governments about Covid-19 vaccinations, 'gender ideology,' or the vandalism of public monuments?" Donato wrote in his order. "It did not rely on anything in the statute, and the plain language of the Community Policing Act does not reveal a basis for the government's actions."
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services grants were established in 1994 to help local police departments hire officers and implement community-focused policing strategies. Congress authorized these grants under legislation that outlines 24 specific purposes, including officer hiring, training in mental health crisis response, and various community policing initiatives.
Notably absent from the statute are any references to Covid-19 vaccine policies, monument protection, or restrictions on diversity programs. These conditions became prerequisites for this year's grants following executive orders issued by the Trump administration in January that targeted what officials called "illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name 'diversity, equity, and inclusion.'"
Judge Donato, a Barack Obama appointee serving in the Northern District of California, rejected the administration's approach. He pointed to the statute governing the grants, which specifically directs applicants to recruit and hire racial and ethnic minorities and women to increase diversity among sworn officers. The administration's new conditions, Donato determined, would actually prohibit what Congress had mandated.
"There is no way to reconcile the" administration's anti-diversity requirements with the statute's diversity mandates, the judge wrote, highlighting the fundamental conflict between federal law and the new grant conditions.
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate diversity programs across federal agencies and federally funded programs. The executive orders issued in January specifically targeted DEI initiatives throughout the government, characterizing them as discriminatory and divisive.
For the affected jurisdictions, the decision provides crucial relief. San Francisco, in particular, faces severe staffing challenges with its police force operating at roughly 70% capacity while grappling with major budget constraints. The $6.25 million grant represents a substantial portion of the nearly $8 million total that was being withheld from the four California jurisdictions.
The other affected jurisdictions - Tucson, San Diego, and Santa Clara County - had similarly refused to accept the federal conditions, choosing to forgo the funding rather than abandon their diversity and inclusion programs.
The judge's analysis focused heavily on the principle that federal agencies cannot impose conditions on grant recipients that exceed their statutory authority. Federal grant-making operates under strict legal frameworks that require clear congressional authorization for any conditions attached to funding.
In this case, the Community Policing Act provides specific guidance about grant purposes and requirements, including the explicit directive to promote diversity in police hiring. The Trump administration's attempt to impose contradictory anti-diversity conditions therefore exceeded the DOJ's legal authority under the statute.
The ruling also underscores broader legal principles about federal oversight of local government programs. While the federal government has significant power to attach conditions to grants, those conditions must be clearly authorized by statute and reasonably related to the grant program's purposes.
The decision may have implications beyond these specific grants, as it establishes precedent for challenging federal attempts to impose ideologically driven conditions on established grant programs without clear statutory authority. Legal experts suggest the ruling could influence how courts evaluate similar efforts to modify existing federal funding programs through executive action.
For now, the four jurisdictions can access their community policing grants without accepting the contested conditions, allowing them to proceed with hiring officers and implementing community policing programs as originally intended by Congress when it created the grant program three decades ago.