A federal judge’s ruling from San Francisco has halted President Trump’s attempts to pull federal funds from what have been termed “sanctuary cities.” On Friday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, an appointee from the Obama era, extended a preliminary injunction, preventing the administration from cutting off funds to cities like Chicago, Boston, and Los Angeles, which have policies that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
In a decision reported by the Associated Press, Judge Orrick stated that the Trump administration can’t deny funding based on local policies meant to protect undocumented immigrants. This ruling is a continuation of the judge’s earlier orders aimed at preserving federal funding for cities that oppose the administration’s immigration crackdown. Judge Orrick has previously protected over a dozen jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Portland, from similar funding cuts.
President Trump has repeatedly issued executive orders aimed at withholding funds from states and cities that protect illegal immigrants. This ongoing legal battle began earlier this year when Santa Clara County, San Francisco, and 14 other jurisdictions filed suit against the Trump administration. They sought to block what they perceived as a violation of their rights through the withholding of federal funds.
Judge Orrick expressed his frustration with the administration’s tactics, noting in his six-page order that “Here we go again,” referring to the continuation of Trump’s executive orders targeting sanctuary jurisdictions. He previously issued a permanent block in 2017 against a similar executive order aimed at defunding these cities.
In detailing his reasons, the judge cited constitutional grounds. He argued that withholding funds from local authorities violates both the Fifth and Tenth Amendments and infringes on due process. Judge Orrick asserted that the cities and counties involved in this case were likely to succeed in their claims regarding separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and due process rights. He pointed out that the challenged sections of Trump’s executive orders conflict with established constitutional principles.
In his ruling, Judge Orrick noted, “the challenged sections in the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directive … violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles,” implying a fundamental overreach by the executive branch into areas best left to local governance. His remarks reflect a clear adherence to constitutional interpretations that favor local control over federal imposition, especially regarding issues of immigration enforcement.
The judge’s continuous pushback highlights an ongoing legal confrontation between the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies and the authority of localities to govern themselves according to their own laws and values. This conflict raises essential questions about the balance of power between state and federal governments, particularly in the context of immigration policy.
As the legal battle unfolds, it is likely that the administration will seek further avenues to challenge these rulings. In the past, similar efforts have sparked significant legal debates that draw on deeply held beliefs about states’ rights, individual freedoms, and the responsibilities of government in handling immigration. Judge Orrick’s decisions serve as a reminder that the judiciary remains an important check on executive power, particularly when actions appear to undermine constitutional protections for local jurisdictions.
"*" indicates required fields
