Federal judge in California issues injunction against Donald Trump's move to withhold funds from "sanctuary" cities in the U.S.
A Judge Stands Firm Against Trump's Sanctuary City Funds Policy
American justice took a stand on the 24th of April, as a judge thwarted the Trump administration's attempt to strip funds from cities offering sanctuary to migrants. The decision, made by U.S. District Judge William Orrick, rendered the administration's policy incompatible with the Constitution, according to court documents.
This historic move proves another roadblock for President Trump in his legal battles, who promised during his campaign to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. In reaction, he signed executive orders for several federal agencies to sever funds from cities recognized as sanctuaries.
The unofficial sanctuary designation signifies local governments' implementation of policies limiting their collaboration with federal authorities on immigration matters. In certain instances, police forces in these cities may be barred from pursuing undocumented immigrants based solely on their immigration status.
Noteworthy cities such as San Francisco, Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle have responded to this issue in court. Judge Orrick sided with these cities on the 24th of April, issuing an injunction that inhibits the federal government from taking "direct or indirect actions to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds" for the involved cities and counties. The injunction, a temporary measure, awaits a comprehensive review of the case.
Trump's advisor, Steve Miller, voiced criticism via social media, lamenting a supposed "judicial coup d'etat" following the decision.
This ruling parallels an earlier preliminary injunction against a similar Trump-era policy in 2017. The administration initially contested the injunction, claiming no specific grants had been withheld, yet the judge dismissed this argument, citing the threat to local budgets essential for housing, emergency services, and law enforcement [1][4].
The ruling by Judge Orrick was legally grounded in two Trump executive orders, which targeted sanctuary jurisdictions and sought to restrict federal funds. Orrick declared these orders unconstitutional, citing potential violations of separation of powers and coercive overreach by the federal government [1][2].
References:- [1] Federal Judge Stands Firm Against Trump's Sanctuary City Funds Policy. Legal Affairs. (April 24, 2025).- [2] San Francisco and Other Cities Secure Preliminary Injunction Against Trump's Sanctuary City Funds Policy. Immigration News. (April 25, 2025).- [3] Orrick halts Trump's attempt to cut federal funds to sanctuary cities. The Hill. (April 24, 2025).- [4] Sanctuary Cities Temporary Injunction – Text of Judge Orrick's Order. Law.news. (April 25, 2025).
- Judge William Orrick's ruling on April 24th inhibited the federal government from taking direct or indirect actions to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds for cities providing sanctuary to migrants, as per an injunction that awaits a comprehensive review.
- The Trump administration's attempt to strip funds from sanctuary cities, a policy considered unconstitutional by Judge Orrick, is another setback for President Trump in his legal battles related to immigration and policy-and-legislation.
- In response to the executive orders signed by President Trump in an attempt to sever funds from sanctuary cities, cities such as San Francisco, Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle have taken the issue to court, with Judge Orrick siding with these cities on April 24th.
- The general news recently has been filled with discussions on the sanctuary cities' funding policy, politics, as well as the legal ramifications pertaining to policy-and-legislation and separation of powers, following Judge Orrick's ruling on Trump's executive orders.
