A federal judge has issued a decisive ruling preventing the Trump administration from cutting off federal funding to dozens of U.S. cities and counties with so-called “sanctuary” policies, a decision that underscores the limits of executive authority in the immigration context.
The Ruling
U.S. District Judge William Orrick, sitting in San Francisco, extended a preliminary injunction that blocks the administration from withholding federal grants from jurisdictions such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and Denver, along with more than 30 other cities and counties.
The ruling stems from legal challenges to executive orders signed by former President Donald Trump, which sought to penalize jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The judge found the orders amounted to an unconstitutional “coercive threat” against local governments, violating separation of powers and federalism principles embedded in the Constitution.
In addition to the broader injunction, Judge Orrick also prohibited the administration from attaching immigration-related conditions to two specific grant programs, further restricting the federal government’s ability to leverage funding to compel state and local compliance.
Sanctuary Cities and Legal Tensions
“Sanctuary cities” are jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Policies vary, but generally include declining to hold individuals beyond their release dates for immigration purposes without a judicial warrant.
The Trump administration aggressively challenged these policies, arguing they obstructed national immigration enforcement. Executive orders directed federal agencies to withhold money from sanctuary jurisdictions and threatened billions of dollars in funding. However, the judiciary has repeatedly curtailed these efforts, finding they exceed executive authority and encroach on Congress’s power to control federal spending.
Broader Implications
The decision highlights the ongoing legal and political battles over the balance of federal and local authority in immigration enforcement. Supporters of the ruling stress that it protects local governments’ ability to prioritize community trust and public safety without the threat of losing vital federal funds. Critics, however, argue it undermines federal immigration law by allowing localities to resist cooperation with federal authorities.
The ruling also adds to a growing body of precedent restricting the federal government’s ability to impose funding conditions not authorized by Congress. Legal scholars point to the case as another example of courts reinforcing the anti-coercion principle articulated in prior Supreme Court cases on federal spending powers.
What’s Next
The Trump administration has already appealed Judge Orrick’s earlier injunction, and further appellate review is expected. Meanwhile, lawsuits between the Department of Justice and sanctuary jurisdictions, including New York and Los Angeles, remain ongoing.
While the administration pledged to ramp up pressure on sanctuary communities, this ruling significantly limits its tools for doing so—at least in the short term.
