A federal judge in California issued an injunction Thursday blocking President Donald Trump's efforts to halt federal funds from going to several cities and counties considered sanctuary jurisdictions.
“The challenged sections in the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directive that order executive agencies to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funding apportioned to localities by Congress, violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles and the Spending Clause,” U.S. District Judge William Orrick said in his ruling.
“They also violate the Fifth Amendment to the extent they are unconstitutionally vague and violate due process,” while Trump's orders "violate the Tenth Amendment because they impose coercive condition intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law."
The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Follow live politics coverage here
San Francisco and 15 other cities and counties across the country had challenged the Trump executive orders and a related directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Orrick blocked a similar effort by Trump during his first term in office, finding that his executive order was "unconstitutional" and that the plaintiffs "faced irreparable harm absent an injunction."
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts
"Here we are again," he wrote.
The Justice Department appealed Orrick's earlier decision in 2017; the appeals court upheld his ruling.
A different federal appeals court, however, ruled in a separate suit in 2020 that the Trump administration could, indeed, withhold “grants” to sanctuary cities.
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts
The Supreme Court was going to hear the issue in 2021, but the Biden Justice Department dropped the appeal, and the matter was dismissed.
"Sanctuary" cities or states are not official terms — the labels refer to states, cities, counties or municipalities that have enacted laws that either explicitly or effectively prevent or limit local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
In the current case, Orrick noted the Justice Department had argued the plaintiffs’ claims are premature “because the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directive merely provide guidance for executive agencies reviewing federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, and because the Cities and Counties have not yet suffered a loss of funds.”
"This is essentially the same argument it made in 2017," he wrote, while the plaintiffs' claims in the new case appear even more persuasive now.
The cities’ and counties’ “well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017," he wrote, and it stems from Trump's executive orders, Bondi's directive and "numerous directives from executive agencies ordering the withholding of funds to localities like the plaintiffs."
Orrick pointed to "legal action that the Government has already initiated against sanctuary jurisdictions in Illinois and New York, in addition to recent statements from high ranking government officials and the litigation over these issues in the first Trump administration.”
He said the cities and counties had also shown "a likelihood of irreparable harm."
"The threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve," he wrote.
