What do sports gambling and immigration policy have in common?

Neither should be exclusively controlled by the federal government, attorneys for New York state, New York City and six other states wrote in a new filing in their lawsuit against the Trump administration for holding federal funds from so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

That argument was included in a brief from the states and city against a motion from the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit, which the federal agency called a “disservice to these states' law-abiding citizens” when it was filed in July.

It was part of a larger argument from the plaintiffs against the federal government's decision to withhold funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. They call the rule an overreach of federal power and said the statute creating the grant doesn't allow it.

The funding, also known as the Byrne JAG grant, is used to support various criminal justice initiatives within municipalities. It's been used in the past to support a multi-county program to combat gun violence in New York, for example.

The Trump administration placed conditions on that funding last year that effectively requires state and local governments to cooperate with officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If they do not, they become ineligible for the grant.

The rule said ICE agents must have access to correctional facilities and be given advance notice if an immigrant will be released from custody. It also prohibits states and localities from blocking their officials from speaking with ICE about an immigrant.

The states wrote in their lawsuit that the new conditions are an encroachment by the federal government, which they claim has not been given the power to impose such rules. The Trump administration said otherwise in its brief earlier this month alongside a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

It said Congress gave the office power in 2006 to “plac[e] special conditions on all grants” and argued that imposing the new immigration-related conditions on the funding is within that authority.

The states argued that their immigration policies do not qualify as “special conditions” because they are not in any way tied to the performance of any particular grantee. The statute of the grant, they said, prescribes flexibility for governments to use the funds to enhance local criminal justice efforts. It does not allow the DOJ to force compliance with federal immigration authorities, they said.

“Nothing in the Byrne JAG statute suggests that Congress intended to confer such broad powers on [the DOJ],” the states wrote.

The states also differ with the administration over the nature of the lawsuit. The DOJ argued the litigation is a question of whether states and cities can evade federal immigration efforts and still receive certain funds. The states called that argument a red herring that ignores the purpose of the grant.

“As intended by Congress, the purpose of the Byrne JAG grant is to provide federal financial assistance to enable states and cities to address crime and public safety at the local level, according to local needs—not to facilitate 'intergovernmental cooperation' with federal immigration enforcement,” the states said in their filing.

Then there's the issue of sports gambling, or rather the Supreme Court decision earlier this year that allowed states to legalize sports betting within their borders. The states argued in their brief that immigration policy is much the same—the federal government should be hands-off in both areas, as the Supreme Court said in Murphy v. NCAA.

“The federal government's immigration powers do not permit it to 'impose its will on the states' in contravention of the Tenth Amendment,” the plaintiffs wrote. “To the contrary, the Supreme Court has made clear that the existence of a federal interest cannot overcome a violation of state sovereignty where, as here, 'it is the whole object of the law to direct the functioning' of the state or locality and 'hence to compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty.'”

It's not the first time the states have presented the argument, which the DOJ rebutted in its brief earlier this month.

“Gambling regulation falls within the traditional police powers of a state, which is a far cry from immigration enforcement—a plenary power of Congress,” the federal agency said.

A request for comment sent to the DOJ on the states' filing was not returned Thursday.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood's office is leading the lawsuit with attorneys general from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington. New York City Corporation Counsel Zachary Carter is also on the lawsuit.

READ MORE:

NY State, City Suing Trump Administration Over Rule Curtailing Funding for 'Sanctuary' Jurisdictions

Connecticut Joins States Suing DOJ, Sessions for Allegedly Tying Immigration Policy to Federal Grants

NY AG May Depose US DOJ Official in Census Suit