Motion seeks to immediately prevent the Trump Administration’s illegal attempts to cut funding to sanctuary jurisdictions to coerce enforcement of federal civil immigration law
SAN FRANCISCO (March 18, 2025) — San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu and Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti announced today that Plaintiff jurisdictions, led by San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, are filing a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in their lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unconstitutional attempts to withhold critical federal funding unless local governments assist the federal government with its immigration enforcement responsibilities.
The lawsuit, initially filed on February 7, is in response to the Trump Administration’s targeting of jurisdictions that have adopted policies that limit the use of local resources to aid federal immigration officials in carrying out civil immigration enforcement, often referred to as “sanctuary” policies. These policies focus local resources on local priorities and help ensure that all community members, regardless of immigration status, can feel safe interacting with local law enforcement without fear that local governments will cooperate with the federal government to take immigration action against them. Sanctuary laws improve public safety and have been repeatedly upheld by federal courts.
Since taking office on January 20, Donald Trump has issued Executive Orders and taken other administrative actions to compel local jurisdictions into carrying out the President’s policy priorities. These actions include threats to withhold federal funding from localities—including critical funds that support local efforts to serve vulnerable residents, promote public safety, and prepare for emergencies—unless they assist with implementation of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement agenda. The Department of Justice has also filed lawsuits against states and localities with policies that limit local assistance with federal civil immigration enforcement.
“The federal government is illegally asserting rights it does not have, as courts already determined during the first Trump Administration,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. “They want to commandeer local police officers as federal ICE agents, while strong-arming local officials with threats of withholding federal funds that support our police department, our efforts to address homelessness, and our public health system. Eroding trust between our communities and law enforcement will make us all less safe. The Administration’s actions are illegal and authoritarian, and we seek to put a stop to it.”
“The Trump Administration is putting the safety of millions of Americans at risk by threatening to withhold critical funding from local governments,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “We are asserting 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.”
Background
Sanctuary laws generally limit the use of local resources to assist with federal civil immigration enforcement. This includes preventing the forced use of local law enforcement to question, detain, or arrest individuals for civil immigration violations and limiting the sharing of confidential personal information with immigration authorities.
Sanctuary laws have been in place for decades, and seek to improve public safety. Studies have consistently shown immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, and sanctuary jurisdictions either see no increase in crime or have lower crime rates.
As a result of sanctuary laws, crime victims and witnesses are willing to come forward and report crimes to police. Trust between law enforcement and communities improves public safety. Eroding trust and targeting hardworking families with threats of deportation does the opposite. It makes individuals fearful to report crimes, go to school, or obtain needed healthcare.
Sanctuary laws do not protect criminals. They prioritize using local law enforcement resources to fight crime, not do the job of the federal government. Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility, not the responsibility of state or local governments. Sanctuary laws do not interfere with or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement in any way.
During the first Trump Administration, San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara sued the federal government after the federal administration attempted to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions based on their sanctuary policies. In that matter and subsequent cases, federal district courts and the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the jurisdictions that the conditions the Trump Administration attempted to place on federal funding were unconstitutional.
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on March 17 asks the Court to prevent the federal government from enforcing the illegal Executive Orders and agency directives targeting sanctuary jurisdictions.
In addition to the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, the lawsuit is also brought by:
- Emeryville, California
- King County, Washington
- Monterey County, California
- Minneapolis, Minnesota
- New Haven, Connecticut
- Oakland, California
- Portland, Oregon
- Paul, Minnesota
- City of Sacramento, California
- City of San Diego, California
- San José, California
- City of Santa Cruz, California
- Santa Fe, New Mexico
- Seattle, Washington
Collectively these jurisdictions are home to nearly 10 million residents. The cities of Minneapolis, New Haven, Portland, St. Paul, Santa Fe, and Seattle are being represented in the case by Public Rights Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that works with local governments to protect civil rights.
The case is City and County of San Francisco, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-cv-01350. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed on March 17 is available here.
###