Federal judge prohibits Trump from withholding federal funds from jurisdictions that restrict their level of cooperation with immigration enforcement.
In a groundbreaking decision, federal judge William Orrick in California recently sided against the Trump administration, barring them from withholding federal funds from "sanctuary" jurisdictions. The ruling declared certain portions of the president's executive orders as unconstitutional.
A number of cities, including San Francisco and others, launched legal battles over cooperation with federal immigration efforts. Judge Orrick granted the injunction, prohibiting the administration from taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds. By Monday, the administration must provide written notice of this order to all federal departments and agencies.
The executive orders issued by Trump intended to withhold federal money from sanctuary jurisdictions, with one order directed towards Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, while the other urged all federal agencies to ensure that payments to state and local governments wouldn’t support sanctuary policies.
Despite Justice Department lawyers arguing that no specific amounts had been withheld or conditions put on specific grants, Judge Orrick, appointed by President Barack Obama, deemed this justification as weak, citing similar legal issues during Trump's first term.
Orrick pointed out that the threatened enforcement by the government instills fear, even stronger than in 2017, due to the executive orders, directives from federal agencies, and lawsuits filed against cities like Chicago and New York.
San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing that the president exceeded his authority. There's no well-defined definition for "sanctuary policies" or "sanctuary cities", but they generally refer to limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Leaders of these jurisdictions assert that their communities are safer because immigrants feel secure in communicating with local police. They also claim that it allows municipalities to focus their resources on local crime enforcement. Besides San Francisco, Santa Clara County, and San José, other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Seattle and King County, Washington, Portland, Oregon, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, New Haven, Connecticut, and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Courts have consistently maintained that federal attempts to withhold funds from sanctuary jurisdictions are likely unconstitutional, reinforcing the autonomy of local governments under the Tenth Amendment. These sanctuary policies, which prioritize using local resources for crime enforcement rather than immigration enforcement, have been found to be legal and compliant with federal law.
- On Monday, the administration is required to distribute written notice about the federal judge's order to all federal departments and agencies, as they agreed to do following the judge's decision.
- The administration's policy of withholding federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, as stipulated in Trump's executive orders, has been challenged in court by multiple cities, including San Francisco.
- In a precedent-setting ruling, federal judge William Orrick recently declared certain portions of the president's executive orders on immigration unconstitutional, barring the administration from withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities.
- The Obama-appointed judge, William Orrick, agreed with the cities' arguments that the executive orders infringed upon their right to self-governance and earlier this year granted an injunction prohibiting the administration from taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds.
- Sanctuary jurisdictions, like San Francisco, argue that these policies prioritizing local crime enforcement over immigration enforcement create safe communities, as immigrants feel secure communicating with local police without fear of deportation.
- In line with the Tenth Amendment's principles of protecting local autonomy, courts have consistently ruled that federal efforts to withhold funds from sanctuary jurisdictions are likely unconstitutional and that these policies, when legal and compliant with federal law, should be upheld.
