A federal judge on Friday hit pause on the Department of Homeland Security’s latest grant conditions, blocking a rule that would have forced Chicago to certify it does not run programs advancing diversity, equity and inclusion. For now, that ruling keeps flowing the federal emergency-preparedness money Chicago leans on for cybersecurity software, hazmat suits, transit protection and other first-responder needs. Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration is the lead plaintiff in a multi-city lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago.
U.S. District Judge Manish S. Shah granted the cities’ request for a preliminary injunction in a memorandum of opinion and order filed Nov. 21, 2025, temporarily preventing DHS from enforcing the disputed grant terms, according to Justia. Shah’s opinion quotes DHS’s new Standard Terms and Conditions, which require grant recipients to certify they “do not … operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology,” language the plaintiffs say is vague and beyond the agency’s authority. The judge found the cities had shown they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the rule took effect while the case plays out.
What the DHS terms would have required
Chicago and its fellow plaintiffs argue the clauses effectively fold recent executive orders into routine grant paperwork and force cities to choose between federal safety dollars and local DEI work. As reported by WTTW, the city told the court the language is so broad it could sweep in everyday municipal practices, leaving grantees exposed to repayment demands or other penalties. The plaintiffs call the certification requirement unprecedented and say it risks chilling widely used diversity and inclusion programs in local government.
Which grants are affected
The opinion flags nine DHS and FEMA grant programs that would carry the new conditions, including the Emergency Management Performance Grant, the Homeland Security Grant Program, the Transit Security Grant Program, the Assistance to Firefighters grants, Hazard Mitigation Assistance, SAFER, and others, and notes that DHS attached the terms to all of its awards for fiscal year 2025, according to Justia. The ruling emphasizes that these funds support a wide range of preparedness work, from nuclear detection and port security to local emergency operations.
Local stakes
City officials say the dollars in play are not abstract budget lines, they are tied to daily public safety. ABC7 Chicago reports the city could lose up to $10 million next year if the conditions ultimately stick. According to the mayor’s office and other plaintiffs, DHS and FEMA awards pay for cybersecurity tools, hazmat suits, transit security and even some first-responder salaries, spending they argue has nothing to do with Washington’s demands about DEI.
City response and legal basis
Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office is pitching the lawsuit as a defense of both public safety and the city’s values. “Ensuring that all Chicagoans have an opportunity to succeed is not discrimination; it’s just basic fairness,” the mayor said in a statement reported by WTTW. Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry has told the court the grant conditions are coercive and exceed DHS’s legal authority under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause.
What comes next
The injunction is a temporary shield, not the final word. The case is scheduled to return to court on Wednesday, December 10, according to ABC7 Chicago. Until then, the order prevents DHS from imposing the contested certification requirement on the plaintiff cities while the court sorts out whether the conditions are lawful.
Legal context
Chicago’s legal theory is that the administration is tying politically charged conditions to congressionally approved grants that are supposed to fund concrete safety needs, mirroring arguments other cities and states have raised against similar directives, as documented by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. The fight highlights recurring questions about how far executive agencies can go when they rewrite grant rules without formal notice and comment, and how courts should balance national policy priorities with local public-safety budgets.
For now, the ruling gives Chicago and its partners a breather as they work to keep federal preparedness money coming in without what they call ideological litmus tests. Expect more filings and a December hearing as both sides dig in for the next round.
