A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s attempts to starve sanctuary cities and counties of millions of dollars in federal grants.
Judge William Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the federal government to cease any effort to freeze funds from Portland and 15 other sanctuary jurisdictions while their lawsuit proceeds.
“We are grateful for the court's affirmation that public safety funds, disaster relief, housing, and transportation should never be subject to unconstitutional federal overreach and interference,” Mayor Keith Wilson said. “Portland remains committed to sanctuary policies that protect the rights of our community.”
Portland currently receives roughly $344 million in active federal grants that play a vital role in supporting public safety, safer streets, affordable housing, gun violence reduction, and many other priorities.
Read the judge's ruling:
The lawsuit, led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, Calif., was filed in February 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. Sanctuary laws improve public safety and have been repeatedly upheld by federal courts.
Previous rulings
President Donald Trump tried to choke off funds to sanctuary cities in 2017, during his first administration. That effort was also struck down by Judge Orrick. In that case, the Trump administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court, and lost.
Shortly after taking office again in January, the Trump administration issued similar policies — prompting a similar rebuke from the bench.
“Here we are again,” Judge Orrick wrote, saying that the orders likely violate the Constitution, which gives Congress, not the President, authority over spending. They also likely run afoul of the Tenth Amendment, he wrote, because they are intended to coerce local officials into enforcing immigration rules, which are a federal responsibility.
Referring to a related order by Attorney General Pam Bondi, he wrote:
“The Bondi Directive’s order to freeze all DOJ funds is likely arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the Constitution.”
Since taking office Jan. 20, Trump has issued executive orders and taken other administrative actions to compel local jurisdictions to carry 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 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 law is clear: the federal government can’t coerce local law enforcement to do ICE’s job,” said Jill Habig, founder and CEO of Public Rights Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that works with local governments to protect civil rights. “The Trump administration’s attempt to destroy sanctuary cities by stripping funding is an illegal attack on public safety and local authority. We’re proud to stand alongside our government partners to defend their communities and policies that help people thrive.”
Find more information on the lawsuit filed by sanctuary cities against the Trump administration.
Background on sanctuary laws
Portland's sanctuary laws generally limit the use of local resources — such as public employees’ time, money and facilities — 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 sharing 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.
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 don’t interfere with or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement in any way.
In addition to Portland and City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, the lawsuit is also brought by:
- Emeryville, Calif.
- King County, Wash.
- Monterey County, Calif.
- Minneapolis, Minn.
- New Haven, Conn.
- Oakland, Calif.
- St. Paul, Minn.
- Sacramento, Calif.
- San Diego, Calif.
- San José, Calif.
- Santa Cruz, Calif.
- Santa Fe, N.M.
- Seattle, Wash.
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.