A federal judge in California issued a ruling on Thursday, preventing the Trump administration from imposing restrictions or denying federal funding to jurisdictions that are classified as “sanctuary” cities. This decision comes in response to claims that certain parts of President Donald Trump’s executive orders were not in alignment with constitutional mandates.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who presided over the case, granted an injunction requested by San Francisco and over a dozen other municipalities. These jurisdictions are known for their policy of not fully cooperating with federal immigration authorities. In his written statement, Judge Orrick specified that the administration is forbidden from any direct or indirect actions that would halt, freeze, or attach conditions to federal funds. Additionally, the government is required to notify all federal departments and agencies of this order by the following Monday.
One of the executive orders in question by Trump mandates that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. A second order instructs all federal agencies to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not assist sanctuary policies, which aim to protect illegal immigrants from deportation.
During a recent hearing, lawyers from the Justice Department contended that granting an injunction was premature, as no specific withholding of funds or conditional grants had been enacted. However, Judge Orrick, appointed by former President Barack Obama, emphasized that similar arguments were made by the government attorneys during a similar controversy in the early part of Trump’s presidency. He highlighted that concerns about policy enforcement were even greater than they had been in 2017, pointing to the rise in executive orders, agency directives, and legal actions brought against cities such as Chicago and New York by the Justice Department.
Previously, San Francisco had successfully contested Trump’s 2017 executive order, with backing from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the president overstepped his bounds by threatening funding for sanctuary cities. The recent decision by the judge was met with approval from the plaintiffs. Tony LoPresti, representing Santa Clara County, remarked that the ruling supports local governments in their mission, allowing them to maintain trust within the communities they serve amidst perceived federal overreach.
However, the compliance of federal agencies with this ruling remains uncertain. Concurrently, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued a reminder to those receiving federal transportation funds about adherence to federal laws, particularly concerning immigration enforcement, or potentially facing consequences.
The terminology for sanctuary policies or cities does not have a universal definition but typically denotes limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While ICE is responsible for implementing national immigration laws, the agency often requires state and local assistance to notify them about immigrants targeted for deportation and to retain such individuals until federal authorities can assume custody.
Leaders of sanctuary jurisdictions position these policies as a means of ensuring community safety, arguing that immigrants feel more open to engaging with local police without the threat of deportation. They also view it as a strategic allocation of local resources to prioritize addressing crime within their own communities.
In addition to San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which includes San José as a third plaintiff, there are 13 other claimants in this lawsuit. These include cities and counties such as Seattle and King County in Washington, Portland in Oregon, Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minnesota, New Haven in Connecticut, and Santa Fe in New Mexico.