A federal judge has determined that a group of cities and counties led by the city of San Francisco can proceed with their lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration for threatening to withhold or terminate federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.
The term “sanctuary jurisdictions” is sometimes used to describe cities and counties that decline to assist federal agents in enforcing national immigration laws.
Shortly after his inauguration in January 2025, Trump issued two executive orders (“Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” and “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders”) that directed the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security and other federal agencies to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions.
Those orders raised issues San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu recently described as “existential” because San Francisco receives approximately $3.7 billion in annual funding from the federal government, and a loss of those funds would wreak havoc on the delivery of critical city and county services.
San Francisco believed that by unilaterally imposing conditions on congressionally authorized grants, the Trump administration was breaching a number of provisions in the U.S Constitution and essentially usurping Congress’ “power of the purse.”
City moved quickly to block funding threat
The city did not wait around for their funding to be withheld. (This was not the first time that San Francisco had been to the rodeo; together with Santa Clara County, it successfully fought executive orders issued by Trump during his first term.)
Accordingly, on Feb. 7, 2025, the city, along with Santa Clara County and a handful of other sanctuary jurisdictions, sued Trump and his administration and asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would suspend the executive orders while the case was pending.
On April 24, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick granted the injunction, finding that there was a likelihood that the city and the other plaintiffs would ultimately win and would be “irreparably injured” while the case was pending if the court did not act.
The Trump administration then filed a motion to dismiss the city’s case, claiming that Orrick had no authority to hear the litigation, in part because the suit was filed before any funds appropriated for the city had actually been terminated. It said that the city had not been injured and had no “standing” to sue.
The administration also argued that the executive orders contained a so-called “savings clause” that said the agencies should take only “appropriate lawful actions.” It followed, they argued, that the city and the other plaintiffs did not even have a genuine fear that they were at risk of unconstitutional action.
Orrick was not persuaded. He found that the savings language did not prevent judicial review when the city’s fears were genuine, based not only on the language of the orders but the government’s other “actions and statements” about what it was going to do to sanctuary jurisdictions.
The judge went on to find that the city’s complaint set forth well-pleaded and plausible claims that the orders violated the Constitution in numerous respects, including by usurping the role of Congress with respect to federal spending, and by executive overreach in violation of the separation of powers that the constitution mandates between the legislative and executive branches of government.
Appeal pending as case moves forward
Orrick’s decision, handed down Tuesday, is an important milestone for the city’s claim, but the case is far from over.
The Trump administration appealed the preliminary injunction order, and the appeal was argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Dec. 5. No decision on the appeal has yet been issued. If the decision is in the city’s favor, it is possible that the Trump administration will seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
With the denial of the city’s motion to dismiss, the case will move into the so-called “discovery phase” where the parties will take depositions and search for documents to prove the allegations in their court filings. After discovery is complete, and if the court is satisfied that factual issues remain in contest, the case will be listed for trial.
In a media briefing Tuesday about the city’s recent litigation against the Trump administration (the briefing was held just before Orrick’s decision was announced), Chiu expressed great pride in San Francisco’s role in leading the litigation over sanctuary jurisdiction funding, as well as in responding to other threats and alleged bullying by the Trump administration.
Chiu recalled that before the election, sometime presidential advisor Steve Bannon said, “every day we will hit them with three things … Bang, bang, bang.”
According to Chiu, Bannon added, “these guys will never be able to look up.”
Chiu said that his office has risen to the occasion. He added, “When a bully takes action, we have to defend ourselves.”