Court order prevents the Trump Administration from commandeering local law enforcement and coercing cities and counties into taking on the federal government’s immigration responsibilities

SAN FRANCISCO (April 24, 2025) — San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu and Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti issued the following statements today after U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick granted a Preliminary Injunction Order preventing the Trump Administration from withholding federal funding to Plaintiff cities and counties unless they assist the federal government with its civil immigration enforcement responsibilities.
“The federal administration is illegally asserting power 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. As we have seen, the Trump Administration has now deported someone by error, and ICE agents have unlawfully arrested United States citizens. We are pleased the Court stated the Trump Administration cannot coerce Plaintiffs into joining their reckless and illegal mass deportation efforts.”
“The Court’s ruling puts an immediate pause on the Trump Administration’s illegal attempts to freeze federal funding simply because it disagrees with local governments’ constitutionally protected decision not to use local resources for immigration enforcement,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “At a time when we continue to see tremendous federal overreach, the Court’s ruling affirms that local governments can serve their mission and maintain trust with the communities they care for.”
The lawsuit is being led by San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, and was initially filed on February 7 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 policies 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 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction prevents the federal government from enforcing the illegal Executive Orders and agency directives targeting sanctuary jurisdictions against the Plaintiffs. The Court found that the Executive Orders impose unconstitutionally ‘coercive condition[s] intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and laws,” and that they “violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles and the Spending Clause” and “are unconstitutionally vague and violate due process.”
Background
So-called “sanctuary” policies 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.
These non-cooperation policies have been in place for decades, and seek to improve public safety. Studies have consistently shown immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, and jurisdictions that decline to use their local resources to assist with immigration enforcement either see no increase in crime or have lower crime rates.
As a result of limiting local assistance with immigration enforcement, 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. Policies preventing the use of local resources to assist with immigration enforcement 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 non-cooperation 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 Court’s order stated that Plaintiffs “well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017: it stems from the plain language of EO 14,159 and EO 14,218, the Bondi Directive, numerous directives from executive agencies ordering the withholding of funds to localities like the plaintiffs, and legal action that the Government has already initiated against sanctuary jurisdictions in Illinois and New York, in addition to recent statements from high ranking government officials and the litigation over these issues in the first Trump administration.”
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
- St. 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 Order Granting Preliminary Injunction is available here. Judge Orrick described today’s order as a summary order and said the Court would issue an order that discusses the issues and reasoning at length at a later date. 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.
###