US Court Bars Trump’s ‘Sanctuary’ City Funding Freeze

Updated 10:38 a.m. Thursday

A federal judge in San Francisco on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive actions to withhold federal funds from states, cities and counties with so-called sanctuary policies.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick said a preliminary injunction against the administration was appropriate because the plans were unconstitutional — just as they were in 2017 when Trump ordered officials to withhold billions from San Francisco and California because of sanctuary policies.

“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,” Orrick wrote in the six-page ruling.

The president’s initial order was issued on his first day in office and called for the Department of Homeland Security and attorneys general to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions — those that restrict local law enforcement officials from cooperating with immigration enforcement — to lose federal funds.

It was followed by another executive order in February that broadened the directive to include all taxpayer funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, as well as a memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi directing the Department of Justice to stop sending money to cities, counties and states with those types of policies and investigate local officials that “impede” operations.

Orrick ordered that the defendants are restrained and enjoined “from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds,” and the administration must provide written notice of his order to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.

In all, 16 cities and counties from around the U.S. have sued in an action brought Feb. 7 and led by Santa Clara and San Francisco. The suit asks the court to block all of the Trump administration’s actions related to stripping funding from sanctuary jurisdictions.

In their lawsuit, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties argue that the government’s threats are unconstitutional, and note that the issue has been litigated before: In 2017, courts of appeals sided with the counties, as well as the city of Chicago, in two cases challenging a similar executive order issued during Trump’s first term in office. That case was also heard by Orrick, who presided over Wednesday’s hearing.

“Both this court and the Ninth Circuit found that the clear and specific directive to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are not eligible to receive federal grants was unconstitutional,” Deputy City Attorney Karun Tilak told the court Wednesday.

In court — and a filing last month — lawyers for the Trump administration argued that an injunction would be premature because the federal government hasn’t actually withheld any money yet, meaning that the cities and counties can’t show they’ve been harmed by the executive order.

“Without knowing which programs are going to be impacted upon what conditions, under what basis. It’s difficult to evaluate the contours of how preliminary relief would be appropriate right now,” said Caroline McGuire, an attorney for the Department of Justice.

Tilak responded that the cities and counties suing cannot continue paying for programs that rely on federal reimbursements, and that even the threat of withholding funds is harming local governments by making it difficult for them to plan and budget.

“They are incurring costs every day, contingent on being able to get reimbursement. If that reimbursement were frozen or if those funds were taken away, that would harm their ability to carry out those programs, and for present purposes, creates an existential uncertainty about whether they should continue funding those programs,” Tilak said, noting that most jurisdictions must finalize their budgets for next fiscal year by the end of June.

McGuire said that in previous cases, during Trump’s first term, the plaintiffs only won injunctions when they identified specific money that was withheld, and could specify the harm that was caused.

But Orrick agreed with the counties, telling the government lawyers that while the administration may not have withheld money yet, the orders issued this time are more sweeping in nature, because they threaten to cut off all federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions — not just specific law enforcement grants.

“The distinction, though, that I think will be hard for you to get around is that the executive order speaks to all federal funds. It’s not speaking to a discrete grant. And so that becomes coercive, as the plaintiffs argue, to governments that rely on federal funding for health care and other things that are at risk,” Orrick said.

If an injunction is issued, the government argued, it should be limited to the jurisdictions that brought the case.

The counties say sanctuary policies make communities safer by ensuring that all residents, including those who lack legal status, are willing to cooperate with local police. And, they argue that the Trump administration’s deportation efforts — and attempts to coerce local jurisdictions to assist with those efforts — are hurting their communities.

“The aggressive federal overreach by the Trump Administration is creating fear and insecurity in communities across this country,” said Tony LoPresti, Santa Clara County counsel, in a statement. “We are asking the Court to intervene to protect the well-established constitutional right of local governments to use local resources for local priorities.

“We will not stand idly by while the Federal Administration attempts to bully counties and cities out of implementing policies that have worked for decades to advance community well-being and public safety.”

KQED’s Elize Manoukian contributed to this story.