By: Justin Winograd

New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and her department, accusing the administration of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in critical federal funding destined for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The action, filed late Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, also seeks an emergency restraining order to preserve the contested funds until the matter can be resolved in court.

According to a Reuters report on Tuesday, James’s office filed the emergency motion just hours after DHS allegedly slashed the state’s expected award from nearly $34 million to zero, an act James described as not only unlawful but also dangerous. “I am asking the court to act before midnight to stop these funds from vanishing and to ensure that New Yorkers are not put at risk by this administration’s political games,” she said in a statement.

The MTA, which James stressed is the lifeblood of New York City, operates the city’s subways and buses as well as commuter rail lines reaching into the surrounding suburbs. It serves millions of riders every day. Federal support is considered vital for ensuring security against terrorism, upgrading infrastructure, and enhancing worker and passenger safety.

The Reuters report noted that James emphasized the urgency of the matter, framing DHS’s decision as a direct threat to the safety of millions of New Yorkers. “DHS today cut New York’s award from nearly $34 million to zero – an unlawful decision,” her press office said.

In her filing, James emphasized that she is not demanding immediate disbursement of the funds, but rather an injunction to safeguard them. The distinction is important: she seeks to preserve the funds from being reallocated or rescinded while legal proceedings unfold.

The decision by DHS to withhold the funds has sparked accusations of political interference. James, a Democrat and frequent critic of Republican-led federal initiatives, said the move represents an attempt by the administration to punish New York through fiscal pressure.

According to the information provided in the Reuters report, DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the lawsuit or the allegations. The department’s silence has only fueled speculation that the funding freeze may be part of a broader clash between Washington and New York over transit policy, worker safety, and security allocations.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of a warning issued last month by the U.S. Transportation Department, which stated it might withhold up to 25% of federal transit funding for the MTA if the agency did not address long-standing safety concerns regarding subway track maintenance workers.

Reuters reported that the Transportation Department’s threat was tied to allegations that the MTA has not done enough to improve worker protections. In recent years, a number of high-profile incidents have raised alarms about the safety of track workers, fueling union complaints and spurring calls for systemic reform.

James’s lawsuit implicitly challenges the linkage of safety compliance to funding freezes, arguing that the withholding of funds does not incentivize reform but instead undermines public safety by depriving the MTA of resources it urgently needs.

The attorney general framed her case as a matter of both legality and public safety. “The MTA is not just a transit system. It is the circulatory system of New York City, and cutting off its funding is tantamount to endangering the millions of people who rely on it daily,” she said.

According to the information contained in the Reuters report, James argued that DHS’s sudden and unilateral decision to slash the funding violated both statutory guidelines and procedural fairness. By removing the funds entirely, rather than conditioning their use, DHS crossed a line from regulatory oversight into punitive action, she contended.

Her filing requested that the court step in immediately to prevent the loss of the funds, stressing that the midnight deadline was critical to blocking the administration from reallocating the money elsewhere.

The lawsuit calls attention to the deepening tensions between New York and federal agencies over transportation and infrastructure funding. James’s move comes at a time when cities across the country are grappling with heightened security concerns, rising operational costs, and politically charged debates about federal oversight.

As the Reuters report highlighted, New York’s transit system has long been considered a top security concern, given its symbolic and practical importance. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, billions of federal dollars have been funneled into the MTA to bolster counterterrorism measures. James argued that DHS’s latest move undermines decades of bipartisan commitment to protecting the city’s commuters.

The lawsuit, formally filed as James v. Noem, will now be reviewed by the Southern District of New York, one of the nation’s most influential federal courts. James’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order demands immediate judicial attention, and a ruling could come as early as this week.

Legal experts told Reuters that while temporary restraining orders are extraordinary remedies, James’s case might meet the threshold if she can demonstrate imminent and irreparable harm. The midnight deadline for preserving the funds, coupled with the MTA’s reliance on federal support for ongoing projects, may help bolster her argument.

If granted, the restraining order would ensure that DHS cannot permanently rescind or redistribute the $34 million until the case is litigated. Longer-term proceedings would then address whether DHS acted within its authority in cutting the funds.

The lawsuit is also likely to resonate politically. James, who has been floated as a potential future candidate for higher office, has positioned herself as a defender of New York against federal overreach. Her framing of the lawsuit as a battle against “political games” may appeal to local constituencies frustrated by Washington’s handling of urban transit funding.

At the same time, critics may argue that New York’s MTA has long struggled with inefficiency, cost overruns, and safety lapses — issues that federal agencies have a legitimate interest in addressing. As Reuters pointed out, the Transportation Department’s earlier warnings about track worker safety reflect concerns that are difficult to dismiss.

The MTA itself has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit. However, insiders suggest the agency is deeply concerned about the implications of losing nearly $34 million in federal support. The funds were reportedly earmarked for security upgrades and infrastructure projects considered critical to the system’s modernization efforts.

Union leaders representing transit workers are expected to weigh in soon. Their position will be pivotal, as they have long demanded greater safety measures for employees, yet also recognize the risks posed by losing federal resources.

Beyond New York, the case could set a significant precedent for how federal agencies leverage funding to enforce compliance on safety and security matters. If the court sides with James, it could limit DHS’s ability to impose financial penalties on state and local agencies without clearer statutory authority.

The Reuters report noted that such an outcome could reverberate across other states that depend heavily on federal transit dollars, potentially emboldening them to challenge federal restrictions in court.

Conversely, if DHS prevails, it may strengthen the federal government’s hand in holding local agencies accountable for safety standards, albeit at the risk of politicizing funding allocations.

As New York awaits the court’s decision, the stakes could not be higher. The MTA is not only a transit system but also a cornerstone of the city’s economy, mobility, and security. Attorney General Letitia James’s lawsuit against DHS and Secretary Kristi Noem shines a spotlight on the fragile balance between federal oversight and local autonomy, while exposing the vulnerabilities of a system that millions of New Yorkers depend on daily.

In her filing, James framed the issue starkly: “This is about protecting the lives of New Yorkers from political maneuvering that jeopardizes our safety. The funds must be preserved.”

Whether the court agrees will likely shape not only the future of the MTA’s funding but also the contours of federal-state relations in public transit for years to come.