August 18, 2025 • 4 mins
I've successfully gathered a significant amount of new information on the lawsuit. The policy at the heart of the case involves the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) placing new conditions on Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding. These conditions would cut off funds to states that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, specifically by not honoring civil immigration reVicquests, denying access to facilities for ICE, or failing to provide advance notice of an individual's release. I have also identified all 20 states and D.C. involved in the lawsuit, and the case has been filed in a federal court in Rhode Island.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You found the podcast Go Beyond the Brief, where we
take a deep dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. Together,
we'll explore the often unseen forces at play. We'll examine
the research, dissect the data, and most importantly, if you're
seeking to understand what's shaping our society, imagine it a huge.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Fund right supporting crime victims across the whole country. And
get this, it's not built on your taxpayer dollars. Nope,
it's entirely from fines penalties collected from federal criminals. That's
the Victims of Crime Act VOCA. It's been foundational since
what nineteen eighty four. But here's the thing. Right now,
twenty states plus DC are actually suing the US Department
(00:41):
of Justice. They're claiming these crucial funds are being illegally
tied up with immigration enforcement. Well it's quite a situation,
it really is.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
And what's so interesting here is voc is funding mechanism.
It's called the Crime Victims Fund, and like you said,
it's financed only by federal criminal offenders, think forfeited assets,
finds penalties, not a from taxes. This fund pushes well
over a billion dollars out annually supports millions of people,
you know, through state programs covering medical cost, counseling, lost wages,
even funeral expenses sometimes. And then there are the services,
(01:11):
emergency shelters, crisis hotlines, sexual assault, forensic exams, really vital stuff, a.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Direct lifeline basically, and that lifeline is now right at
the center of this whole dispute because the dew Er
j they've introduced some new conditions. They're essentially saying states
won't get these VOCA funds funds mandated by Congress, mind you,
unless they agree to specific immigration demands.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
What kinds of demands are we talking about.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Well, things like refusing to honor civil immigration requests, or
denying IC officers' access into state facilities, or even just
not giving advanced notice when someone's getting released from custody.
So the plaintiffs, these states and DC, they're calling it
an illegal move using victim funds as leverage for a
(01:56):
totally separate agenda. It's quite a twist, isn't it, seeing
victor made caught up in immigration policy?
Speaker 3 (02:01):
It absolutely is, and it raises a big question really
for you listening, is this just you know, a policy
adjustment by the executive branch, or is it maybe an overreach,
something that could actually harm the very services VOCA was
set up to provide. The legal claims being made here
are pretty serious.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
So what's really at stake? Then? Our deep dive shows
this lawsuit really turns on some fundamental constitutional ideas, like
the spending clause and federalism. Now, for our listeners, the
spending clause that's about Congress's power to put strings on
federal money and the states they're arguing these new strings,
these conditions aren't germane, basically not relevant to victim ad
(02:42):
And then there's federalism, that core idea of power divided
between federal and state governments. The states say these conditions
are illegal commandeering of their resources. Could you maybe elaborate
on commandeering here? Why is that such a strong term?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Sure, commandeering in this legal context essentially means the federal
government trying to force states to enforce federal law, kind
of like trying to make state employees act as federal agents.
States argue, look, you can't force us to spend our
own money or shift our law enforcement priorities just to
do federal immigration work. So the laws you claims the
dj isn't just setting conditions, it's dictating how states operate
(03:16):
in areas outside the direct scoop of victim services as
the states see it. And beyond just the legal points,
there's a huge public safety angle here. Many people worry
this could really damage the trust between local police and
immigrant communities. Think about it. If victims are scared that
reporting a crime might lead to immigration issues, well they
(03:37):
might just not report it, and that means crimes go unpunished.
Communities are less safe.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
That potential loss of trust. Yeah, that's a critical point.
And you mentioned this isn't exactly happening in a vacuum, right,
It sort of fits a larger pattern.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
If you look at the bigger picture. You're absolute right.
This isn't totally isolated. It seems to be part of
a well a recurring pattern. You see sometimes administrations using
federal dollars to push their policy goals. We've seen similar
tensions before, maybe with Violence Against Women Act funding VAW
grants tied to certain definitions or reporting rules, or the
whole debate around funding for sanctuary jurisdictions, cities facing potential
(04:13):
funding cuts for not cooperating fully with federal immigration enforcement
so this Voca lawsuit, it's a really significant new test
of those constitutional lines executive power versus state power. It
just highlights how these federal grants, which are meant for
vital programs, can become tools in bigger policy fights.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Yeah, definitely. So the outcome here it's going to set
a really critical precedent for federal grants going forward and
for that whole federal state relationship. It really makes you
ask yourself, how could that balance of power shift depending
on how this goes, And what are the ultimate consequences,
you know, for communities, especially vulnerable groups, if crucial aid
gets held up or that trust disappears because of these
(04:51):
policy battles, something to think about.
You found the podcast Go Beyond the Brief, where we
take a deep dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. Together,
we'll explore the often unseen forces at play. We'll examine
the research, dissect the data, and most importantly, if you're
seeking to understand what's shaping our society, imagine it a huge.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Fund right supporting crime victims across the whole country. And
get this, it's not built on your taxpayer dollars. Nope,
it's entirely from fines penalties collected from federal criminals. That's
the Victims of Crime Act VOCA. It's been foundational since
what nineteen eighty four. But here's the thing. Right now,
twenty states plus DC are actually suing the US Department
(00:41):
of Justice. They're claiming these crucial funds are being illegally
tied up with immigration enforcement. Well it's quite a situation,
it really is.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
And what's so interesting here is voc is funding mechanism.
It's called the Crime Victims Fund, and like you said,
it's financed only by federal criminal offenders, think forfeited assets,
finds penalties, not a from taxes. This fund pushes well
over a billion dollars out annually supports millions of people,
you know, through state programs covering medical cost, counseling, lost wages,
even funeral expenses sometimes. And then there are the services,
(01:11):
emergency shelters, crisis hotlines, sexual assault, forensic exams, really vital stuff, a.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Direct lifeline basically, and that lifeline is now right at
the center of this whole dispute because the dew Er
j they've introduced some new conditions. They're essentially saying states
won't get these VOCA funds funds mandated by Congress, mind you,
unless they agree to specific immigration demands.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
What kinds of demands are we talking about.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Well, things like refusing to honor civil immigration requests, or
denying IC officers' access into state facilities, or even just
not giving advanced notice when someone's getting released from custody.
So the plaintiffs, these states and DC, they're calling it
an illegal move using victim funds as leverage for a
(01:56):
totally separate agenda. It's quite a twist, isn't it, seeing
victor made caught up in immigration policy?
Speaker 3 (02:01):
It absolutely is, and it raises a big question really
for you listening, is this just you know, a policy
adjustment by the executive branch, or is it maybe an overreach,
something that could actually harm the very services VOCA was
set up to provide. The legal claims being made here
are pretty serious.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
So what's really at stake? Then? Our deep dive shows
this lawsuit really turns on some fundamental constitutional ideas, like
the spending clause and federalism. Now, for our listeners, the
spending clause that's about Congress's power to put strings on
federal money and the states they're arguing these new strings,
these conditions aren't germane, basically not relevant to victim ad
(02:42):
And then there's federalism, that core idea of power divided
between federal and state governments. The states say these conditions
are illegal commandeering of their resources. Could you maybe elaborate
on commandeering here? Why is that such a strong term?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Sure, commandeering in this legal context essentially means the federal
government trying to force states to enforce federal law, kind
of like trying to make state employees act as federal agents.
States argue, look, you can't force us to spend our
own money or shift our law enforcement priorities just to
do federal immigration work. So the laws you claims the
dj isn't just setting conditions, it's dictating how states operate
(03:16):
in areas outside the direct scoop of victim services as
the states see it. And beyond just the legal points,
there's a huge public safety angle here. Many people worry
this could really damage the trust between local police and
immigrant communities. Think about it. If victims are scared that
reporting a crime might lead to immigration issues, well they
(03:37):
might just not report it, and that means crimes go unpunished.
Communities are less safe.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
That potential loss of trust. Yeah, that's a critical point.
And you mentioned this isn't exactly happening in a vacuum, right,
It sort of fits a larger pattern.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
If you look at the bigger picture. You're absolute right.
This isn't totally isolated. It seems to be part of
a well a recurring pattern. You see sometimes administrations using
federal dollars to push their policy goals. We've seen similar
tensions before, maybe with Violence Against Women Act funding VAW
grants tied to certain definitions or reporting rules, or the
whole debate around funding for sanctuary jurisdictions, cities facing potential
(04:13):
funding cuts for not cooperating fully with federal immigration enforcement
so this Voca lawsuit, it's a really significant new test
of those constitutional lines executive power versus state power. It
just highlights how these federal grants, which are meant for
vital programs, can become tools in bigger policy fights.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Yeah, definitely. So the outcome here it's going to set
a really critical precedent for federal grants going forward and
for that whole federal state relationship. It really makes you
ask yourself, how could that balance of power shift depending
on how this goes, And what are the ultimate consequences,
you know, for communities, especially vulnerable groups, if crucial aid
gets held up or that trust disappears because of these
(04:51):
policy battles, something to think about.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.