US federal judge blocks Trump’s withholding of federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions – JURIST
A US federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funds to certain “sanctuary jurisdictions” around the US.
This suit was brought after 16 cities with sanctuary laws challenged Trump’s Executive Orders 14,159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” 14,218 titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” and a February 2025 memo from Attorney General (AG) Pamela Bondi. These all purported to begin withholding federal funds from cities with sanctuary laws.
The 16 cities filed suit in February of 2025, stating that these orders were unlawfully forcing local officials to comply with federal immigration arrests. US District Judge William Orrick agreed on April 24, granting a preliminary injunction against the executive orders and the Bondi directive. This injunction prevents the federal government’s officers from directly or indirectly withholding or freezing federal funds from the 16 cities that brought suit.
These cities, led by San Francisco, have historically followed sanctuary laws, which prevent state and local law enforcement from aiding federal civil immigration enforcement efforts. This implementation of these laws has deemed these cities “sanctuary jurisdictions,” where undocumented immigrants have taken residence due to the lack of support of state and local law enforcement in federal civil immigration enforcement.
These sanctuary laws have been put in the limelight after Trump signed two executive orders within the first few weeks of his second presidential term, which expressed his disapproval of the sanctuary jurisdictions outright. In Judge Orrick’s opinion on this issue, he stated:
14,159 directs the United States Attorney General and the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions,” cities and counties that limit the use of local resources to enforce federal immigration law. EO 14,218 directs every federal agency to ensure that “federal payments” to localities do not “by design or effect” “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”
Orrick goes on in the opinion to clarify that even though these two orders do not mention a definition of “sanctuary jurisdictions,” a memo from AG Bondi, titled “Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directives,” on February 5 “provides a clear picture of what jurisdictions qualify, and of the 2025 Executive Orders’ intended purpose: to end or severely curtail federal funding for cities, counties and states that the Trump administration deems to be sanctuary jurisdictions.” Orrick stated these three documents, taken together, violate at least separation of powers principles, the Spending Clause, and the Fifth and Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution.
The Trump administration argued that it was too early for a preliminary injunction to be granted since no actual withholding or freezing had taken place yet. Orrick, who was nominated by former president Obama, disagreed, stating this is essentially what Trump’s lawyers tried to do in defending a similar order signed during Trump’s first term in 2017. This order, No. 13,768, was similarly challenged by San Francisco in 2017 and was also enjoined by Orrick in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, stating that President Trump exceeded his executive authority with the order.
