June 18, 2026
Federal Funding Opportunities for Law Enforcement and Public Safety Agencies
Several recently released DOJ funding opportunities offer grant funding directly to state, local, tribal, territorial, and other public safety agencies. View current funding opportunities at this link. Some of the opportunities include:
• COPS Hiring Program (CHP). FY 2026 CHP provides up to $157.5 million directly to law enforcement agencies to hire or rehire additional sworn officers/deputies. Awards cover up to 75 percent of entry-level salary and fringe benefits for three years, with a maximum federal share of $125,000 per officer/deputy position and a 25 percent local match unless waived. Eligible applicants include established and operational local, state, territorial, and tribal law enforcement agencies with primary law enforcement authority. Grants.gov deadline: July 23, 2026; JustGrants deadline: July 29, 2026.
• Model Cities Initiative. DOJ expects to award approximately $300 million to 2–4 cities for comprehensive public safety strategies focused on violent crime reduction, proactive policing, technology, prosecution, victims’ services, reentry, behavioral health, and related public safety needs. Eligible applicants are local government entities serving populations of at least 100,000. Deadline: September 1, 2026.
• BJA Bridging Immigration-Related Deficits Experienced Nationwide Program. BJA’s FY 2026 Bridging Immigration-Related Deficits Experienced Nationwide program makes $3 billion available, with the total number of awards yet to be determined. Eligible applicants include government entities with direct criminal justice responsibilities, including investigation, prosecution, detention, corrections, transportation, and support activities. Applicants must participate in, or commit to, a 287(g) partnership and either HSTF operations or other major DOJ enforcement efforts. Round 1 Grants.gov deadline: July 15, 2026; JustGrants deadline: July 17, 2026.
• COPS Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act Program. FY 2026 LEMHWA supports peer support, training, family resources, suicide prevention, stress reduction, clinical support, and related officer wellness programming. Approximately $9 million is available for start-up and enhanced implementation projects, with awards of $250,000 and no local match. Grants.gov deadline: July 30, 2026; JustGrants deadline: August 5, 2026.
• COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force Program. FY 2026 AHTF provides up to $34.5 million directly to eligible state law enforcement agencies for statewide collaborative efforts addressing heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, and unlawful opioid distribution. Awards are up to $4 million, with no local match. Grants.gov deadline: July 23, 2026; JustGrants deadline: July 29, 2026.
• COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program. FY 2026 CAMP provides up to $13.5 million directly to eligible state law enforcement agencies for methamphetamine-related investigative activities. Awards range from $1 million to $2 million, with no local match. Grants.gov deadline: July 23, 2026; JustGrants deadline: July 29, 2026.
• COPS School Violence Prevention Program. FY 2026 SVPP provides up to $73 million to states, units of local government, Indian tribes, and public agencies, including law enforcement agencies and school districts, for school safety and security improvements. Awards are up to $500,000, with a 25 percent local match; approximately $1 million is reserved for microgrants up to $100,000. Grants.gov deadline: August 4, 2026; JustGrants deadline: August 11, 2026.
• COPS Technology and Equipment Program. FY 2026 TEP provides up to $401.4 million for law enforcement technology, equipment, and interoperable communications projects. Awards are for 24 months and do not require a local match. Grants.gov deadline for each is July 16, 2026; JustGrants deadline is July 23, 2026.
• OVC Victim Services Opportunities. OVC also has several open victim services NOFOs for which public agencies may be eligible, including: Services for Victims of Crime ($31 million; 62 awards; up to $500,000); Services for Victims of Technology-Facilitated Abuse ($6 million; 6 awards; up to $1 million); and Technology to Support Services for Victims of Crime ($4.4 million; 4 awards; up to $1.1 million). Grants.gov deadline for each is June 23, 2026; JustGrants deadline is June 29, 2026.
Agencies should review each Notice of Funding Opportunity carefully for eligibility, match requirements, required certifications, allowable costs, and two-step submission deadlines.
Supreme Court Rules on United States v. Hemani – Overview for Law Enforcement Leaders
This article provides a general overview of a United States Supreme Court case and its implications for law enforcement agencies. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Agencies should consult their own legal counsel regarding the law of their jurisdiction.
United States v. Hemani is a significant United States Supreme Court decision examining whether the government may prohibit firearm possession by individuals who use marijuana under federal law. At the center of the case is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which makes it unlawful for any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, including marijuana, to possess a firearm, even in states where cannabis has been legalized.
On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision holding that the government’s prosecution of an individual under § 922(g)(3) based solely on marijuana use violates the Second Amendment. The Court affirmed the dismissal of charges against the respondent, finding that applying the statute in this manner is inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Applying the historical analogue framework set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Court concluded that the government failed to demonstrate a sufficiently analogous historical tradition to justify categorically disarming individuals based only on marijuana use. The Court emphasized that the government cannot rely on generalized assumptions that all marijuana users are dangerous without individualized evidence.
Importantly, the Court’s ruling is narrow. It does not strike down § 922(g)(3) in its entirety, nor does it address restrictions on individuals who are actively intoxicated, addicted, or otherwise shown to pose a danger. The decision also does not disturb other long-standing firearms prohibitions, including those applying to convicted felons.
At its core, the case asks whether marijuana use alone—absent evidence of impairment or dangerousness—can justify limiting a constitutional right. The Court’s answer signals that categorical, status-based firearm prohibitions face significant constitutional challenges unless supported by historical analogues and individualized risk.
Potential Impacts on Policing
A Supreme Court decision narrowing the federal firearm prohibition tied to marijuana use has immediate and far-reaching implications for law enforcement agencies. While § 922(g)(3) remains in place, the decision significantly limits its application and weakens its utility as a categorical basis for enforcement or policymaking.
For many departments, current categorical policies are grounded—at least in part—in the fact that federal law disqualifies marijuana users from possessing firearms. With that foundation narrowed, agencies may face increased scrutiny in maintaining categorical prohibitions on off-duty marijuana use by officers.
In practical terms, departments could see a rise in grievances, arbitration cases, and litigation challenging disciplinary actions or hiring decisions tied to marijuana use. Officer labor organizations may argue that, in jurisdictions where cannabis is legal under state law, such policies should be reevaluated and aligned more closely with how agencies treat alcohol.
The decision shifts the legal framework from bright-line rules toward more individualized, risk-based assessments. Agencies may need to clearly articulate safety risks, operational needs, and readiness standards, particularly in the absence of a clear federal prohibition.
The ruling also introduces uncertainty in areas where federal law has historically provided clarity. Agencies may need to reassess policies governing firearm eligibility, participation in federal task forces, and compliance with federally funded programs.
Beyond legal considerations, the operational implications are equally significant. Police leaders may face increased challenges related to ensuring officer readiness and managing impairment.
Key Takeaway
While United States v. Hemani does not eliminate the authority of law enforcement agencies to regulate officer conduct, it significantly alters the legal foundation for marijuana-related firearm restrictions. Agencies should be prepared to ground their policies in operational, safety, and readiness considerations specific to their jurisdiction, independent of any federal law predicate.
In effect, the decision marks a shift from categorical rules toward more complex, individualized assessments of risk, requiring careful legal, operational, and leadership considerations across the law enforcement profession.
IACP and Law Enforcement Partners Raise Concerns Over the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act
Congressional attention remains focused on the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act (FANFSA) and related proposals as part of ongoing negotiations to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), with lawmakers considering potential warrant requirements and new restrictions on law enforcement access to commercially available data.
At the same time, the Espaillat amendment adopted during House Appropriations Committee consideration of the FY2027 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill would similarly limit law enforcement’s ability to obtain certain commercially available information used in investigations.
In response, IACP joined a broad coalition of law enforcement organizations in sending two joint letters to Congress on June 4. One to congressional leadership expressing concern about incorporating FANFSA-like restrictions into FISA reauthorization without meaningful law enforcement consultation, and another to appropriators opposing the Espaillat amendment and urging its exclusion from the final bill.
Both letters underscore that these types of restrictions would significantly hinder early stage investigations, threat identification, and victim location efforts, while reaffirming a commitment to working with Congress to achieve balanced solutions that protect both public safety and civil liberties. Both letters are available on IACP’s advocacy page and are linked below.
IACP Meets with Administration and Congress Regarding Crypto Legislation
IACP recently joined a coalition of law enforcement organizations, including National Association of Police Organizations, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, in meetings with Administration officials, Senate Banking Committee staff, and congressional offices to discuss the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (H.R. 3633). These discussions reflect continued engagement following IACP and a collation of law enforcement association’s formal correspondence to Congress outlining law enforcement priorities related to digital asset regulation. While the bill includes several provisions that would strengthen investigative authorities and help bring needed structure to cryptocurrency markets, IACP has expressed ongoing concerns, particularly regarding provisions governing blockchain regulation that could inadvertently limit police access to critical information. IACP appreciates the willingness of administration and congressional leaders to engage on these issues and will continue working with the administration, and the Senate Banking and Judiciary Committees to ensure the legislation appropriately balances innovation with public safety and effective enforcement tools, with additional meetings already underway.
Senate Passes Fighting PTSD Act
On June 10, the Senate passed the bipartisan Fighting PTSD Act (S. 825), led by Senators Chuck Grassley and Chris Coons, as part of the National Police Week legislative package. The measure directs the Department of Justice to develop recommendations for a nationwide approach to improving access to evidence-based mental health care for public safety personnel experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder. By acknowledging the significant mental health challenges associated with repeated exposure to trauma in the line of duty, the legislation represents an important step toward expanding access to confidential treatment, peer support, and related resources for police officers and other first responders. The IACP will continue to work with policymakers as the bill moves to the House for further consideration.
IACP remains committed to ensuring the voice of the policing profession is heard at the highest levels of government. IACP’s advocacy is grounded in the needs of those serving on the front lines.
We will continue to keep you informed as advocacy efforts progress and new opportunities arise. If you have any questions about IACP’s advocacy efforts or would like to connect further, please contact IACP’s Legislative Affairs team at legaffairs@theIACP.org.
Past Legislative Updates
