San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu announced on Friday, February 7, 2025, that the City and County of San Francisco, alongside Santa Clara County, have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s latest directives targeting sanctuary jurisdictions.
The legal action seeks to protect local control and public safety from what officials describe as unconstitutional federal overreach.
The lawsuit contests Executive Order 14159 and recent U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) memoranda that threaten to withhold federal funds and criminally prosecute local officials who refuse to aid in federal immigration enforcement.
San Francisco and Santa Clara County are seeking a court declaration that these directives are unconstitutional, as well as an injunction preventing their enforcement.
Chiu criticized the federal government’s approach, stating:
“Since his first term, Donald Trump has tried different ways to coerce cities into doing the job of the federal government and carrying out federal immigration enforcement. This is the federal government coercing local officials to bend to their will or face defunding or prosecution, and that is illegal or authoritarian… We still live in a democracy under the rule of law, and the federal government needs to follow the law. Local officials have a right to do their jobs without threats or interference from the federal government.”
Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti echoed these concerns, emphasizing that the Tenth Amendment prohibits federal “commandeering” of local law enforcement. He stated:
“The federal government can’t commandeer our local government. They can’t commandeer our local resources, and they can’t commandeer our local law enforcement to help them carry out a vision of mass deportation.”
Constitutional and Legal Violations Alleged
The lawsuit contends that the Trump administration’s actions violate multiple constitutional principles, including:
- The Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government from compelling local jurisdictions to enforce federal laws.
- The Spending Clause, which prohibits coercive conditions on federal funding.
- The Separation of Powers Doctrine, which restricts executive overreach.
- The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which protects individuals and jurisdictions from arbitrary government action.
- The Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates that federal agencies follow proper rulemaking procedures.
Historical Legal Precedent and Impact on Public Safety
San Francisco and Santa Clara County previously challenged similar anti-sanctuary city measures under the Trump administration.
In a notable case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that imposing immigration-enforcement conditions on unrelated federal funding was unconstitutional.
Chiu and LoPresti argue that sanctuary policies are essential for public safety, as they foster trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
Studies and law enforcement associations have consistently supported the notion that local policing is more effective when victims and witnesses are not deterred by fears of immigration consequences.
LoPresti underscored this point, stating:
“We are striving to create a culture of trust and security within our communities, so that our residents know that they can come to the county when they are in need, or when they can be of help … Our non-cooperation policies are designed to protect that trust and security, and the federal government can’t weaponize federal funding to bully us away from that commitment to trust and security.”
California police chiefs’ associations have also asserted that forcing local officers to double as federal immigration agents undermines their primary mission of crime prevention and law enforcement.
Potential Consequences and Broader Litigation
San Francisco and Santa Clara County argue that billions of dollars in federal funding are at stake, including resources for healthcare, public safety, social programs, and infrastructure. Chiu described the potential loss of funds as “catastrophic.”
Other cities and counties, including New Haven (Connecticut), Portland (Oregon), and King County (Washington), have joined the lawsuit.
The number of participating jurisdictions is expected to increase as the litigation progresses. LoPresti remained confident in the legal challenge, asserting:
“We litigated before, and we prevailed. We are litigating again, and we will prevail again.”
The case is expected to be a pivotal legal battle over federalism, local governance, and immigration policy.
