Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Defund Sanctuary Jurisdictions

SAN FRANCISCO, April 24, 2025 — In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, has issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s efforts to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. These jurisdictions, which include cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, faced threats of funding cuts under an executive order aimed at penalizing non-compliance with immigration policies.

Judge Orrick’s decision, issued in the Northern District of California, stems from lawsuits filed by several municipalities, including San Francisco and Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs argued that the administration’s policy violated constitutional principles and inflicted harm on local governance. In his ruling, Orrick wrote, “The Cities and Counties have also demonstrated 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.”

The ruling draws on legal precedents affirming the limits of federal authority over local governments. Scholars have noted that such disputes hinge on the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to states and localities not delegated to the federal government. According to a 2018 study in the Yale Law Journal, “The federal government cannot use its spending power to coerce states or localities into adopting policies that infringe on their autonomy” (Vol. 127, p. 456). Orrick’s injunction aligns with this principle, emphasizing that conditioning federal grants on immigration enforcement oversteps constitutional bounds.

The Trump administration’s policy targeted jurisdictions that adopt sanctuary policies, which often involve refusing to honor federal detainer requests for undocumented immigrants unless accompanied by a judicial warrant. These policies aim to foster trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. A 2020 study in Criminology & Public Policy found that sanctuary policies do not significantly increase crime rates and may enhance community safety by encouraging cooperation with police (Vol. 19, p. 245).

Critics of the ruling, including some administration officials, argue that sanctuary jurisdictions undermine national immigration enforcement and public safety. Supporters, however, contend that local governments should retain discretion over their resources and community relations. The decision marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battle over immigration policy, with potential implications for federal-state relations.

The Trump administration has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. For now, sanctuary jurisdictions can continue receiving federal funds without the immediate threat of cuts, preserving their ability to operate critical programs.

17GEN4.com