Judge blocks Trump from cutting federal funds to sanctuary cities

In California, on a Thursday in April 2025, a significant legal ruling was handed down by US District Judge William Orrick, who enjoined the Trump administration from denying or conditioning federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions. This order came as a challenge from San Francisco and over a dozen municipalities that have limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The judge concluded that parts of President Donald Trump's executive orders infringed on constitutional rights, labeling them unconstitutional. This ruling mirrored previous legal stances taken during Trump’s earlier presidency, where similar actions against sanctuary cities were overruled by federal courts. As President Trump sought to impose stricter measures on immigration and enhance federal authority, these executive orders served as tools aimed at cutting funds to local governments not fully complying with federal immigration demands. The challenged executive orders aimed to impede funds from U.S. Treasury allocated for state and local governments that implemented policies seen as protective towards undocumented immigrants. Sanctuary jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Santa Clara County, argued that these measures violated their rights under constitutional law, leading to this significant judicial inquiry. In the prior term, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Trump's administration overstepped its bounds when attempting to cut funding from cities labeled as 'sanctuaries.' Orrick's latest ruling reaffirmed this precedent, asserting that the federal government cannot impose financial penalties on local municipalities without clear legal authority granted by Congress. The judge's stance was reinforced by the claim that the legal landscape surrounding sanctuary policies had not substantially changed. With Judge Orrick’s injunction now in place, sanctuary cities can continue operating under their established policies without the fear of losing critical federal funding. Immigration advocates and local government officials have expressed relief and support for the ruling, viewing it as affirming the principle of local control in matters concerning community safety and immigration enforcement. It emphasizes the ongoing clash between federal directives and local governance, a matter likely to continue influencing national dialogues surrounding immigration policy and municipal autonomy in the future.