How New Immigration-Related Restrictions Inhibit Justice for Survivors of Violence Against Women

credits: Stock Images

A coalition of majority-Democratic states recently filed a lawsuit challenging new restrictions that bar the use of federal grant funding to provide legal services to a victim of domestic violence and sexual assault if they are an undocumented immigrant. This lawsuit joins a slew of others filed by attorneys general of blue states in response to the Trump administration attaching immigration-related strings to federal funding. The states/districts filing the lawsuit include New York, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, Arizona, California, D.C., Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, though the lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island federal court.

The Department of Justice informed states that they could no longer aid undocumented immigrants using money from grants issued in accordance with the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) and the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA). VOCA and VAWA empower states to provide services such as compensation for medical and funeral costs and legal representation in family court for protective orders to victims of violent crimes, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. The new restrictions also apply to money from Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which are used to fund state and local criminal justice initiatives and some states’ public defenders’ offices. 

The plaintiffs in the suit outline three main arguments against these new restrictions. First, they argue that these new restrictions are arbitrary because they attach cryptic conditions to grants that have already been awarded, and that they are unconstitutional because they violate the Spending Clause, which bestows Congress (rather than the Justice Department) with authority over federal spending. Second, they take issue with the inconsistency between the new restrictions and the original laws establishing these grants, since the VAWA and VOCA do not make eligibility for services conditional upon immigration status. Third, the plaintiffs argue that the restrictions violate the Administrative Procedure Act by “failing to provide any explanation for reversing decades of policy, ignoring the reliance interests of states and service providers, and failing to consider the devastating harm to survivors.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James argues that, “Sexual assault and domestic violence survivors turn to our courts for safety and protection. They should never be turned away because of who they are or where they come from.” The Department of Justice’s restrictions exclude any victims who “cannot immediately prove their immigration status,” meaning that even legal U.S. citizens could be turned away if they are unable to prove their immigration status at the moment. Critically, this includes victims of domestic violence or human trafficking who may be attempting to escape an imminently dangerous situation and whose abusers or attackers often restrict their access to key legal documents.

For context, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted to aid victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. It was both the first federal law outlining a federal response and allocation of resources to support survivors of violence against women, and the first piece of major legislation recognizing domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes. The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and corresponding Crime Victims Fund were created to provide non-taxpayer money to support survivors via almost 6,500 direct service organizations, including domestic violence shelters and child abuse treatment programs. Rather than excluding women who are undocumented immigrants, VAWA actually created a new provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act permitting domestic abuse survivors and their children to self-petition for permanent resident status rather than being deported. 

Despite the fact that these laws and the grants issued pursuant to them were intended to protect all victims of violence against women regardless of their immigration status, the new restrictions are consistent with a pattern of immigration policies that harm the predominantly female victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and other crimes. For instance, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, passed by the House of Representatives in January 2025, creates barriers for victims of domestic violence who are undocumented immigrants to come forward or leave abusive situations due to the risk of deportation.

Heightened border security and the deportation of undocumented immigrants have been a top priority for the Trump administration, as is evident in the increased presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in major cities like D.C. and Los Angeles. However, these new conditions on the use of federal funding for survivors of violence against women raise concerns even for women who are lawful U.S. citizens. Not only will women who are undocumented immigrants be deterred from leaving abusive situations due to the fear of getting deported, but women who are U.S. citizens may also not get the help that they need if their abuser is withholding their legal documents, which is unfortunately quite common in abusive situations.

In summary, the new restrictions call into question whether the Justice Department and the Trump administration are signing off on a trade-off between stronger immigration policy and women’s safety. The states that have sued the Justice Department take issue with how these restrictions defy existing laws like VAWA and VOCA and create new barriers to survivors of violence and abuse receiving the help they are legally owed from the federal government.

Aditi Bhattacharjya is a second-year at Brown University studying Economics and International and Public Affairs. She is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at aditi_bhattacharjya@brown.edu.

Alice Kovarik is a second-year at Brown University studying Economics and International and Public Affairs. She is an editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at alice_kovarik@brown.edu.

Simon Juknelis is a second-year at Brown University studying Computer Science and Applied Mathematics. He is an editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at simon_juknelis@brown.edu.