Judge expands order stopping Trump from cutting funds to sanctuary cities


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Federal funds and sanctuary cities

A judge on Friday expanded a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration withholding federal funds from places that limit how much local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary cities 'likely to succeed'

Judge William H. Orrick said sanctuary cities that sued the administration are "likely to succeed on the merits of their claims" that the federal government's actions are unconstitutional.

Issue being appealed

The White House said in a statement that sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at American citizens' expense. A spokeswoman said they "look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue."


Full story

A judge on Friday expanded an order blocking the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from “sanctuary” cities and counties. It now includes 34 places, including Los Angeles, California; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois and Denver, Colorado. 

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

In an earlier ruling, Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California granted San Francisco, Santa Clara and fourteen other municipalities with sanctuary policies a preliminary injunction. He called the Trump administration’s actions a “coercive threat” to the cities.

“I determined that the Cities and Counties are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that defendants’ actions with respect to the enjoined executive orders and related agency directives were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and spending clause doctrines and violated the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act,” Orrick said.

Orrick said the issue is now on appeal.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to Straight Arrow News that sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense of American citizens’ safety.

“The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” she said, adding that the White House looks forward to “ultimate vindication on the issue.”

Sanctuary cities, counties and states are ones that have policies in place restricting how much local law enforcement can work with federal immigration authorities. President Donald Trump in April signed an executive order directing federal agencies to put them on a list, citing public safety and national security, but this was later taken down after backlash, including from the National Sheriffs’ Association.

“Trump is intent on ignoring the rule of law and punishing all who would disagree with him,” sanctuary cities and counties said in their initial lawsuit against the administration.

Cuts to federal funding, they said, could negatively affect critical services and public infrastructure.

Since then, the Department of Justice has taken legal action against cities such as Denver, Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago, as well as New York state, Illinois, New Jersey and Colorado. A federal judge in July dismissed the lawsuit against Chicago and Illinois.

A police department in one sanctuary city, Washington, D.C., is allowing its officers to cooperate with federal immigration agencies. NBC Washington, citing an internal memo, reported that the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, Pamela Smith, issued an executive order letting officers share personal or identifying information with immigration agencies about individuals who are not under arrest or in police custody. They can also help transport those detained by federal immigration officers and the authorities themselves.

Tags: , , ,

SAN provides
Unbiased. Straight Facts.

Don't just take our word for it.


Certified balanced reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Certified Balanced May 2025

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Why this story matters

A federal judge's expansion of an order blocking the Trump administration from withholding funds from sanctuary cities highlights ongoing legal disputes over immigration policy and federal versus local authority, affecting funding and safety debates across numerous United States cities and states.

Sanctuary cities

Policies in these cities limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and are central to the legal and political dispute over how local governments interact with federal agencies.

Federal versus local authority

The legal battle addresses whether the administration can penalize cities and states for opposing its immigration enforcement policies, raising questions about constitutional limits and state autonomy.

Impact on public services

Cities argue that cutting federal funds could negatively affect essential services and infrastructure, heightening concerns about the consequences of federal policy decisions on local communities.

Get the big picture

Behind the numbers

Multiple sources report that cities and counties said billions of dollars in federal funding were at risk due to the Trump administration's actions. This figure underscores the extensive impact such funding cuts could have had on local services and budgets.

Community reaction

Local officials and community leaders, particularly in sanctuary cities, have expressed commitment to maintaining local immigration policies and protecting their residents' rights despite federal pressure, while some legal experts praised the judge's decision as upholding constitutional principles.

Terms to know

Sanctuary city: A jurisdiction that limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Injunction: A court order that legally prevents a party from going through with a particular action — in this case, withholding federal funds.

SAN provides
Unbiased. Straight Facts.

Don't just take our word for it.


Certified balanced reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Certified Balanced May 2025

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left frame the judge’s decision as a crucial defense against what they portray as the Trump administration’s aggressive and punitive cutting of billions in federal funding to sanctuary cities, emphasizing the harmful impact on immigrant communities and highlighting the administration’s inconsistent enforcement demonstrated by the removal of the DHS sanctuary list.
  • Media outlets in the center adopt a more constitutional and legalistic tone, spotlighting Judge William H. Orrick’s characterization of the executive orders as an unconstitutional “coercive threat” and providing in-depth analysis of local officials’ defiance, such as Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s steadfast refusal to comply.
  • Not enough unique coverage from media outlets on the right to provide a bias comparison.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

141 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • A judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and 30 other cities over "sanctuary" policies.
  • U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction to protect sanctuary jurisdictions from stripped federal funds.
  • The Trump administration seeks to pressure these communities to support immigration enforcement, as stated in one of their executive orders.
  • Cities that sued claim that billions of dollars in funding are at risk due to the administration's actions against sanctuary policies.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

  • On Friday evening, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a ruling preventing the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from a group of cities and counties —i ncluding major municipalities such as Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles — due to their sanctuary policies that restrict collaboration with federal immigration authorities.
  • This decision came after President Trump issued executive orders instructing federal officials to withhold funding from jurisdictions that implement policies protecting undocumented immigrants from federal immigration enforcement.
  • Orrick called the administration's actions an unconstitutional coercive threat and extended a preliminary injunction blocking funding cuts, noting the administration offered no opposition to the extension.
  • The ruling preserves billions of dollars in federal funds for sanctuary jurisdictions and signals judicial resistance to the administration's efforts to punish cities limiting immigration enforcement cooperation.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot deny funding to 34 cities and counties due to their "sanctuary" policies.
  • Orrick's preliminary injunction protects these jurisdictions, including Boston and Los Angeles, from losing federal funds.
  • The judge described the Trump administration's actions as an unconstitutional "coercive threat" against sanctuary cities.
  • The lawsuits emphasize the risk of losing billions in funding due to the administration's immigration policies.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™