Supreme Court Block House Passage of Sweeping DHS Funding Bill, Declaring the $10 Billion ICE Expansion Unconstitutional After Democrats Crossed Party Lines to Deliver a 220–207 Victory Following Donald Trump’s Involvement

Supreme Court Rules Against House-Passed DHS Funding Bill

Washington, D.C. — In a major legal and political development, the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a sweeping Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill that was narrowly approved by the House of Representatives last month. The bill, which authorized a $10 billion increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operational funding through Fiscal Year 2026, had passed in a 220–207 vote, with six Democrats crossing party lines following reported involvement and public support from former President Donald Trump.

The 6–3 ruling came after a coalition of civil liberties organizations, state attorneys general, and budget oversight advocates filed a rapid legal challenge arguing that the bill violated constitutional requirements governing federal appropriations. The challengers claimed that certain automatic funding triggers in the bill bypassed traditional congressional budget controls and effectively granted DHS expanded spending authority without direct oversight.

“What we reviewed was not simply an immigration policy disagreement,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, according to the Court’s released summary. “This case concerned Congress’ adherence to the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. While Congress maintains broad authority over spending, it must exercise that authority within constitutional parameters and established processes.”

Under the now-invalidated legislation, ICE would have received significant increases in operational funding for enforcement technology, detention capacity, transportation, and field operations. Supporters, including Trump-aligned Republicans, argued the spending was necessary to address national security concerns and border pressures. Detractors criticized the proposal as excessive, poorly constrained, and likely to encourage civil rights violations.

Politically, the Supreme Court’s ruling comes at a tense moment in Washington. The House leadership had framed the bill as a marquee achievement on immigration and federal security policy, while Democrats remained split, with some moderates citing pressure from constituents worried about public safety. Republican leaders responded to the decision with criticism, accusing the Court of overreach into legislative affairs, despite the constitutional reasoning cited in the ruling.

Democratic leadership largely welcomed the outcome, emphasizing the Court’s warning about budget procedure rather than the bill’s immigration language. Several of the Democrats who voted with Republicans, however, expressed disappointment, saying they believed the bill would have strengthened enforcement without compromising civil liberties.

The Biden administration had not publicly committed to signing the legislation prior to the ruling, a silence that analysts said reflected internal administration divisions over immigration strategy and fiscal constraints.

With the bill struck down, DHS will now continue to operate under currently authorized funding levels unless new legislation is advanced. Congressional aides signaled that a revised appropriations bill could emerge in the coming weeks, though significant disagreements remain between the parties — and even within them — on immigration policy, government spending, and the limits of congressional authority.

The ruling also raises broader questions about how far Congress can go in delegating spending discretion to federal agencies. Legal scholars suggested that this case could influence future fights over national security budgets, emergency authorizations, and executive branch flexibility.

For now, the decision represents a rare but consequential collision between Congress and the Supreme Court over the mechanics of federal funding — a reminder that constitutional procedure can be just as defining as the policy outcomes it shapes.