A federal judge has permanently blocked the Department of Transportation (DOT) from conditioning grants based on states’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

In a summary judgment order on Nov. 4, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island said the Trump administration’s conditions violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Trump administration “expressly inserted the [conditions] into ... grant agreements to coerce the States into cooperating with federal immigration enforcement,” McConnell wrote. He said the conditions bore “no reasonable relationship to the transportation infrastructure programs” to which they were attached.

McConnell’s decision followed a similar, more tentative block that he imposed in June. His order was the latest of many to halt the administration’s attempts to crack down on city-level sanctuary laws that contradict federal immigration law.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued the funding-related directive that was challenged after President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting funding for sanctuary jurisdictions. Portions of the executive order were later blocked by a federal judge in California.

The Trump administration defended the conditions Duffy imposed as falling within its executive discretion.

“[The Department of Transportation] provided a reasoned basis for the Immigration Conditions: ensuring that recipients of federal funds do not obstruct federal law enforcement in violation of federal law,” the Justice Department said in a filing from September.

“The Secretary’s reiteration of grantees’ obligations to comply with federal law, including federal immigration laws, reflects an exercise of discretion in light of evolving national security concerns.”

The administration also argued that McConnell shouldn’t be able to rule on the case, which it said should be heard in either a court of appeals or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The administration argued that the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over contract disputes involving the federal government.

McConnell disagreed, ruling that because the plaintiffs, which include multiple states, had challenged grant conditions rather than an executed grant agreement, they didn’t have to go to the Court of Federal Claims.

Both he and the administration pointed to a case involving the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate National Institutes of Health grants. In that instance, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court’s decision to vacate the grant terminations.

In its decision from August, the Supreme Court suggested that the district court in that case didn’t have jurisdiction. However, McConnell noted that the Supreme Court denied the administration’s request for a stay of a district court order involving grant-related policies.

The administration also suggested that the conditions merely reiterated federal law.

“Nothing prohibits DOT from reminding grantees of their obligations to comply with federal laws, including federal immigration laws,” the Justice Department stated. “Because Plaintiffs do not address the clarification that these Conditions only reiterate federal law, they fail to address the original Congressional authority for these requirements.”