Court rules against Trump’s ability to withhold federal funds from cities limiting immigration cooperation

In San Francisco, a federal judge made a ruling against the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary” jurisdictions. The judge stated that portions of President Donald Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional.

The injunction was granted by U.S. District Judge William Orrick in response to a request from San Francisco and over a dozen other cities that have policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration actions.

Judge Orrick’s order prevents the administration from withholding, freezing, or placing conditions on federal funds going to these jurisdictions. Additionally, the administration must inform all federal departments and agencies of this order in writing by the upcoming Monday.

One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money from sanctuary jurisdictions. The second order directs every federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

At a hearing Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was much too early for the judge to grant an injunction when the government had not taken any action to withhold specific amounts or to lay out conditions on specific grants.

But Orrick, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said this was essentially what government lawyers argued during Trump’s first term when the Republican issued a similar order.

“Their well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017,” Orrick wrote, citing the executive orders as well as directives from Bondi, other federal agencies and Justice Department lawsuits filed against Chicago and New York.

San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the president exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order threatening to cut funding for “sanctuary cities.”

Plaintiffs were pleased with the judge’s order.

“At a time when we continue to see tremendous federal overreach, the Court’s ruling affirms that local governments can serve their mission and maintain trust with the communities they care for,” said Tony LoPresti, counsel for Santa Clara County, in a statement.

It’s unclear if federal agencies will abide by the order. On Thursday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued a reminder to recipients of federal transportation funding that they are expected to follow federal law, including on immigration enforcement, or face potential consequences.

The department did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces immigration laws nationwide but seeks state and local help in alerting federal authorities of immigrants wanted for deportation and holding that person until federal officers take custody.

Leaders of sanctuary jurisdictions say their communities are safer because immigrants feel they can communicate with local police without fear of deportation. It is also a way for municipalities to focus their dollars on crime locally, they say.

Besides San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which includes a third plaintiff, the city of San José, there are 13 other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which include Seattle and King County, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; and Santa Fe, New Mexico.