CA and OR Cities, Counties Sue Federal Agencies Over Conditions Placed on Fire Service Grant Funding
A coalition of California and Oregon cities and counties has filed suit in federal court challenging new conditions imposed by federal agencies on a wide range of grant programs, including several that directly fund fire departments.
The plaintiffs include California jurisdictions—the Cities of Fresno, Santa Clara, Redwood City, Santa Cruz, and Stockton, and the Counties of San Diego, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara—as well as Oregon jurisdictions, including the Cities of Beaverton, Corvallis, and Hillsboro.
The defendants are senior officials and agencies within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of the Interior (DOI).
The complaint focuses heavily on FEMA-administered programs under the U.S. Fire Administration, particularly the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants and the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. According to the plaintiffs, these programs were created by Congress for specific, operational purposes: increasing or maintaining frontline firefighter staffing, improving compliance with NFPA staffing and response standards, and allowing fire departments to obtain equipment, training, and resources necessary to protect both firefighters and the public.
The complaint describes SAFER grants as competitively awarded funds designed to help departments “increase or maintain the number of trained, front-line firefighters available to serve their communities,” including assistance in attaining 24-hour staffing levels consistent with NFPA standards. AFG grants, by contrast, are described as funding critical equipment, training, and resources necessary to address fire and fire-related hazards.
Several of the plaintiff jurisdictions detail their reliance on these programs. For example, the Fresno Fire Department reportedly relies on a SAFER grant exceeding $7.3 million to increase firefighter staffing for frontline operations and a separate AFG award of more than $700,000 to support firefighter and public safety. Redwood City, according to the complaint, has received over $3.6 million in SAFER funding and more than $1.3 million in AFG funding to support its fire department. Santa Clara similarly identifies SAFER funding exceeding $11 million tied directly to firefighter staffing for front-line operations.
The lawsuit alleges that FEMA, acting through DHS, has recently imposed new grant conditions that were not authorized by Congress and are unrelated to the statutory purposes of the fire grant programs. These conditions allegedly include broad certifications and compliance requirements tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, immigration enforcement cooperation, and adherence to executive directives unrelated to fire protection, emergency response, or firefighter safety.
According to the complaint, the SAFER and AFG statutes authorize FEMA to impose conditions tied to eligibility, use of funds, peer review, and compliance with existing grant terms, but do not authorize the agency to condition fire grants on unrelated policy objectives. The plaintiffs allege that the challenged conditions place local governments and fire departments in an untenable position: either comply with requirements they contend are unlawful or risk losing critical federal funding used to staff fire companies, meet minimum staffing standards, and protect communities.
The plaintiffs are using five primary legal theories/causes of action:
- Separation of Powers: Plaintiffs allege the Executive Branch (through DHS/FEMA/DOJ/DOI) is unilaterally attaching new, policy-driven conditions to congressionally authorized grant funds without congressional authorization—an infringement on Congress’s spending/appropriations powers.
- Spending Clause: Plaintiffs allege the challenged grant conditions violate Spending Clause limits because, among other things, conditions must be unambiguous, not coercive, and germane (reasonably related) to the federal interest in the funded program.
- Tenth Amendment: Plaintiffs allege the conditions are so severe they cross the line from encouragement to coercion—effectively forcing state/local governments to adopt federal policy preferences.
- Fifth Amendment Due Process (Void-for-Vagueness): Plaintiffs allege the conditions are written so vaguely that recipients lack fair notice of what is required or prohibited and enforcement becomes standardless (including how terms like “cooperate” or “promote” are used).
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Plaintiffs allege the agencies’ inclusion of the challenged conditions is unlawful under the APA, including as arbitrary and capricious agency action.
They also frame the case at the outset as challenging “vague and unauthorized conditions” that allegedly exceed constitutional and statutory authority, implicating the Spending Clause, vagueness doctrine, and APA safeguards
The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to determine that the challenged conditions are unlawful and to prohibit the federal agencies from enforcing them as a prerequisite to receiving congressionally authorized fire service grants.
