More cities and counties across the US join San Francisco and Santa Clara County in legal challenge to stop Trump Administration’s unconstitutional actions
SAN FRANCISCO (July 9, 2025) — San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu announced today that 34 more cities and counties across the United States have joined San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara in a lawsuit that challenges Trump Administration actions illegally harming jurisdictions that have so-called sanctuary policies.
Sanctuary laws and policies prioritize city and state resources for traditional law enforcement, crime fighting efforts, and other local and state priorities, instead of being forced to take on the federal government’s immigration enforcement responsibilities. Sanctuary laws improve public safety and have been repeatedly upheld by federal courts.
“As bad as they want to, the federal government cannot commandeer our local law enforcement,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. “Tearing families apart and strong-arming local officials with threats of defunding or prosecution does nothing to make our country safer. The Trump Administration’s actions are illegal and authoritarian, and we believe they will continue to be found unconstitutional and unenforceable.”
“Local governments across the country are asserting their well-established constitutional right to use local resources for local priorities,” said Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara. “At a time of heightened fear in our communities, we will continue to resist attempts to bully counties and cities out of implementing policies that have been proven to advance community well-being and public safety.”
The following cities and counties joined the lawsuit in an amended complaint filed yesterday.
- Alameda County, CA
- Albany, CA
- Albuquerque, NM
- Allegheny County, PA
- Baltimore, MA
- Bend, OR
- Benicia, CA
- Berkeley, CA
- Boston, MA
- Cambridge, MA
- Cathedral City, CA
- Chicago, IL
- Columbus, OH
- Culver City, CA
- Dane County, WI
- City and County of Denver, CO
- Healdsburg, CA
- Hennepin County, MN
- Los Angeles, CA
- Marin County, CA
- Menlo Park, CA
- Multnomah County, OR
- Pacifica, CA
- Palo Alto, CA
- Petaluma, CA
- Pierce County, WA
- Richmond, CA
- Rochester, NY
- Rohnert Park, CA
- San Mateo County, CA
- Santa Rosa, CA
- Sonoma County, CA
- Watsonville, CA
- Wilsonville, OR
The lawsuit is led by the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara and several of the localities in the case are represented by Public Rights Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that works with local governments to protect civil rights. In addition to San Francisco and Santa Clara, the existing Plaintiffs include:
- Emeryville, CA
- King County, WA
- Minneapolis, MN
- Monterey County, CA
- New Haven, CT
- Oakland, CA
- Portland, OR
- Sacramento, CA
- San Diego, CA
- San Jose, CA
- Santa Cruz, CA
- Santa Fe, NM
- Seattle, WA
- St. Paul, MN
The lawsuit, initially filed on February 7, involves jurisdictional policies that limit the use of local resources to aid federal immigration officials in carrying out civil immigration enforcement. These policies focus local resources on local priorities such as providing services to vulnerable populations and carrying out traditional law enforcement activity to protect local public safety. They prohibit the federal government’s commandeering of local government resources to carry out civil immigration enforcement, which is a federal responsibility. The courts have repeatedly upheld local governments’ Constitutional right to choose a policy of non-cooperation. These policies in no way prevent the federal government from using its own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.
Since the lawsuit was filed, the Trump Administration has doubled down on its tactics, issuing a second Executive Order targeting jurisdictions by directing executive departments and agencies to ensure that “Federal payments to States and localities do not … abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies,” and then a third Executive Order ominously threatening “consequences,” including defunding, for sanctuary jurisdictions. In addition, the Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against states and localities with such policies in place, asserting an unlawful and unprecedented interpretation of the federal government’s authority over local government resources.
On April 24, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick granted a Preliminary Injunction Order preventing the Trump Administration from withholding federal funding to Plaintiff jurisdictions in order to coerce cities and counties into taking on the federal government’s immigration responsibilities. The Court has subsequently clarified its order to prevent renewed efforts by the Trump Administration to categorically withhold funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions through new Executive Orders and agency-wide directives and standard terms and conditions.
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 the 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 and San Francisco’s policies complied with federal laws.
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 second amended complaint filed yesterday is available here.
###