What specific legal arguments do the 21 attorneys general make in their lawsuit against the DOJ’s 2025 funding conditions?

1. Spending Clause and retroactive conditioning: DOJ cannot rewrite grant bargains after the fact

A central claim is that the federal government breached the Spending Clause bargain by imposing new conditions on grants already awarded or promised under fixed statutory formulas; the attorneys general argue that conditioning VOCA and related funds on cooperation with civil immigration enforcement is retroactive and therefore unconstitutional because Congress already allocated those funds and states accepted them under a different legal framework ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

2. Administrative Procedure Act: arbitrary reversal and lack of reasoned explanation

The complaint asserts DOJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by reversing decades of practice—where VOCA, VAWA, and Byrne grants were available regardless of immigration status—without adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or consideration of harms to victims and providers, rendering the new “Legal Services Condition” arbitrary and capricious ^{[3] [5] [2]}.

3. Ultra vires action and separation‑of‑powers concerns: DOJ exceeded its statutory authority

The AGs argue DOJ lacks authority to convert victim‑service grants into tools of immigration enforcement, claiming the agency’s directive is ultra vires and an improper expansion of executive power into areas Congress has not authorized; earlier complaints in the coalition’s litigation portfolio frame similar disputes as separation‑of‑powers problems when agencies purport to rewrite statutory funding schemes ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Misuse of the “agency priorities” clause and attempt to terminate long‑standing funding entitlements

The coalition points to prior litigation over an “agency priorities clause” and warns the administration is using regulatory clauses or internal memos to strip away funds Congress intended for specific programs—arguing DOJ’s move is functionally a mass funding cut cloaked as grant conditions and thus unlawful when it contravenes statutory apportionments and fixed formulas for VOCA distribution ^{[7] [2] [6]}.

5. Vagueness, administrative burden, and impracticability for service providers

The attorneys general also press practical statutory‑interpretation claims: the new conditions are vague (who counts as “removable” or who must be screened), impose impossible screening and reporting burdens on subgrantees, and would force providers to choose between serving victims and losing federal funds—an outcome the AGs say DOJ failed to consider in violation of the APA ^{[1] [8] [3]}.

6. Remedies sought and the broader stakes the AGs emphasize

The multistate suit asks courts to enjoin enforcement of the condition, vacate the immigration‑related requirements for current grants, and preserve statutorily directed funding flows so victims’ services continue uninterrupted; the complaint frames the relief as necessary to prevent cuts of roughly $1.2–1.4 billion in victim assistance and related programs in fiscal 2025 ^{[4] [9] [2]}.

7. Counterarguments, DOJ posture, and the political subtext

DOJ declined comment in initial reporting and has issued internal guidance and memos that prompted the litigation; the AGs’ framing of systemic overreach dovetails with broader challenges by states to administration‑wide uses of regulatory levers to shift funding priorities—critics of the AGs’ approach might argue the DOJ is asserting lawful supervisory control over federal grants and prioritizing immigration enforcement, but the sources show DOJ did not publicly defend the new condition in the cited reports ^{[9] [10] [4]}.