The cities of San Diego and San Jose filed a joint lawsuit against the Department of Justice alleging that the agency used the threat of withholding federal funding to pressure local cooperation with the Trump administration’s agenda, specifically its immigration crackdowns and eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
Amid federal funding cuts, this lawsuit specifically addresses the eligibility conditions placed on grant awards for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program. The lawsuit asks for a judge to rule the immigration- and anti-DEI-related grant conditions unlawful and prohibit the Trump administration from enforcing them.
Defendants include the DOJ and leaders in the Office of Justice Programs, such as the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention — responsible for administering the grant for the ICAC Task Force Program.
The ICAC Task Force Program is designed to assist local law enforcement in prosecuting online child predators and protecting children from sexual exploitation. Federal funding pays for local programming resources, including public education on online exploitation, investigators, prosecutors, forensic examinations, and victim services.
Aside from federal funding, the ICAC Task Force Program receives funds from state general funds and local government and law enforcement budgets.
The city of San Diego leads the regional ICAC task force, which encompasses San Diego County. The grant would amount to $581,664, if the city accepts the award and complies with the DOJ’s two conditions. The city of San Jose’s award package would be $641,658.
The lawsuit alleges the DOJ unlawfully implemented two “unrelated, policy-driven grant conditions” in the cities’ awards, which the cities argue the DOJ does not have the legal authority to enforce. The two conditions apply to any city that accepts awards for the ICAC Task Force Program, and funding can be withdrawn after it is dispersed if the cities violate the conditions.
The two conditions are: only operate programs that avoid promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, and do not hinder federal immigration enforcement. According to the lawsuit, the conditions “prohibit the use of ICAC funding for purposes that the Administration does not support.”
The first condition “certifies that it does not operate any programs (including any such programs having components relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion) that violate any applicable Federal civil rights or nondiscrimination laws.”
The cities in this lawsuit argue that the language of these conditions does not make clear what programs or activities are prohibited in the context of the administration’s efforts to enforce its agenda.
Under the “unallowable uses of funds” in the grant acceptance package, the second condition threatens the funds of any program that “directly or indirectly, violates … federal immigration law … or impedes or hinders the enforcement of federal immigration law — including by failing to … give access to [Department of Homeland Security] agents, or honor DHS requests and provide requested notice to DHS agents.”
The lawsuit argues that this condition imposes political policies unrelated to the ICAC Task Force Program.
The San Diego Police Department’s response to online child exploitation and trafficking cases would be limited without ICAC funding, according to the Office of the City Attorney’s press release last Monday.
This lawsuit follows an ongoing legal action from 2025, where a coalition of 16 cities — including San Diego and San Jose — and counties across the country filed a lawsuit asking the court for an injunction. The suit challenged the federal government’s attempts to impose immigration-related conditions on local governments of sanctuary cities by threatening to withhold funding, for example. On April 24, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III granted a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration, particularly the DOJ, DHS, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, from imposing political conditions relating to federal immigration crackdown compliance on federal funding packages.
The DOJ has not issued a formal public statement, and as of now, there is no publicly known scheduled hearing for the case.