Press Release

Justice Department Clarifies Duty of States to Report Known Illegal Aliens Under Welfare-Reform Law

Wednesday, September 2, 2026

Share right caret

For Immediate Release

Office of Public Affairs

The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued a legal opinion clarifying that when a state chooses to participate in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs, all agencies within that state — not only those that administer TANF or SSI benefits — must report individuals known to be not lawfully present in the United States to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“Congress wrote this requirement plainly,” said Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. “When a state chooses to participate in TANF, it accepts the obligation to report illegal aliens in the United States. Tax dollars intended to help vulnerable Americans should not perversely encourage illegal entry into the United States, but rather should reinforce our laws and our borders.”

“Our clarification does not impose new obligations on states,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joshua Craddock of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and author of the opinion. “It simply restores the original meaning of the statute Congress enacted and ensures that DHS receives the information it is legally entitled to. States that accept TANF funding must abide by federal law, and failure to comply may lead to serious consequences, including loss of program funding.”

The Office withdrew a Clinton-era opinion from 1998 that construed the reporting requirement much more narrowly. Under that prior interpretation, only the specific state agencies administering TANF or SSI were required to provide information to federal immigration authorities. All fifty states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories currently participate in TANF and SSI, and federal TANF funding grants exceed $16.4 billion annually.

The Office of Legal Counsel’s Sept. 1 opinion explains that Congress defined “State” broadly in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. As a result, when a state accepts federal TANF or SSI funds, the entire state government — including all component agencies — is bound by federal law to share information with DHS about individuals the state knows to be not lawfully present.

The opinion applies prospectively. States will not face retroactive penalties for past reliance on the 1998 interpretation. Federal agencies may rely on OLC’s advice to update TANF and SSI grant agreements and compliance processes to reflect the correct legal standard moving forward.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900145&forum_id=2E#50112533)

Eric Schmitt

@Eric_Schmitt

Sanctuary cities just lost one of their favorite loopholes.

States taking federal welfare money cannot order their police, DMVs, or others to hide known illegal aliens from DHS.

Sanctuary jurisdictions must obey federal law or lose federal funding

https://x.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/2095231437721010265?s=20

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900145&forum_id=2E#50113118)

will trumpkins please follow AMERICAN law instead of third world shit? THANK

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900145&forum_id=2E#50113121)

### 🏛️ The Constitutional Principle: Congress Holds the "Power of the Purse"

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the primary power over federal spending. Article I, Section 9 states that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law". This establishes that the President cannot simply refuse to spend money that Congress has directed be spent.

The **Impoundment Control Act of 1974** was passed specifically to reinforce this principle. It requires the President to obtain congressional approval before he can defer or rescind (cancel) any congressionally appropriated funds.

### ⚖️ Key Court Rulings on the Funding Freeze

Multiple federal courts have ruled against the Trump administration's attempts to broadly freeze federal funds.

* **First Circuit Court of Appeals (March 2026)**: Upheld a lower court order blocking the administration's "sweeping and unprecedented" freeze on up to $3 trillion in federal assistance. The court found the freeze likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the administration failed to consider the "reliance interests" of states and other recipients who depend on these funds.

* **District Court Ruling (March 2025)**: A federal judge blocked the policy, ruling that "The Executive's categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government". The judge concluded that "the Executive put itself above Congress".

* **Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (September 2025)**: Ruled that the Justice Department does not have the authority to withhold federal grant money from so-called "sanctuary cities".

* **Other Rulings**: Courts have also blocked freezes on specific funds, such as more than $10 billion in child care assistance and transportation grants. In one case, the Justice Department dropped its appeal after a court permanently blocked the administration's threat to withhold transportation funds from states that did not assist with immigration enforcement.

### ⚠️ The Supreme Court and a Notable Exception

In a significant exception, the **Supreme Court in September 2025** granted the Trump administration's emergency request to freeze about $4 billion in foreign aid.

* The conservative majority found that, "at this early stage," the Impoundment Control Act might prevent the lawsuit from moving forward.

* However, the Court explicitly stated its order "should not be read as a final determination on the merits".

* In a strong dissent, Justice Elena Kagan characterized the president's action as "essentially, a presidential usurpation of Congress's power of the purse".

### 💎 Summary

The extensive litigation and rulings described above demonstrate that the legal system has been actively engaged in checking what many courts have deemed an overreach of executive power. While the Supreme Court's intervention on foreign aid represents a notable victory for the administration's position, it was an emergency ruling on a narrow set of facts and not a final judgment on the broader constitutional question. The weight of lower court decisions has consistently reaffirmed that the President does not have the unilateral authority to freeze funds that Congress has appropriated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5900145&forum_id=2E#50113155)