States file lawsuit challenging FEMA’s new rules on emergency management grants

Key Takeaways

DECEMBER 22, 2025 UPDATE: In Illinois v. Noem, a federal court ruled that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must reverse recent changes to key emergency management grants. The court vacated DHS’s actions, restored the three-year performance periods for both the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) and removed the population certification requirement. The ruling also orders DHS to resume normal disbursement of funds and permanently bars the agency from enforcing similar conditions.

On November 4, a coalition of 12 states filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), alleging that recent changes to key emergency management grants are unlawful and could disrupt state and local preparedness efforts.

The lawsuit challenges new conditions imposed on the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) and the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). These grants are critical funding sources that help state, county and local governments build capacity to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs—Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky and Wisconsin—argue that FEMA’s changes threaten ongoing projects and limit the ability of local governments to manage long-term preparedness efforts. They also allege that the new requirements exceed FEMA’s authority and were imposed without adequate explanation or adherence to federal procedural standards.

What changes did FEMA make

FEMA recently announced two new rules governing how states can access and use certain emergency management and homeland security grants:

1. The performance period for both EMPG and HSGP grants was shortened from three years to one year.  
2. For grants requiring population counts, states must now submit revised population numbers that exclude individuals removed under immigration law.

Population counts based on U.S. census data have long been used to allocate grant funding, but FEMA’s new requirement that states recertify their populations, including a detailed explanation of the methodology used, adds a significant burden. States currently do not know what methodologies will be acceptable or if their calculations will be approved, as the federal government has not provided guidance on how to perform these recalculations. The plaintiff states argue that this uncertainty creates additional obstacles to accessing critical funding and could complicate the administration of emergency management and homeland security programs at the state and local level.

Impact on counties

Following these new requirements, FEMA has placed a funding hold on already approved EMPG grants until states submit recertified population counts, including an explanation of their methodology. This hold could delay funding that flows to counties for emergency preparedness and response activities. In addition, the shortened performance period may limit the scope of long-term projects that states and counties can undertake with these grants, creating further challenges for planning and sustaining critical emergency management efforts.  

NACo will continue monitoring this case and its implications for county emergency management and homeland security programs.