The battle over sanctuary cities has returned to a familiar arena—and a familiar judge. In San Francisco this week, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, an Obama appointee, once again ruled against President Trump’s efforts to crack down on cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Orrick’s decision expands an earlier injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. Originally filed in February by San Francisco and a coalition of cities and counties, the lawsuit has since grown to include Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, Denver, Albuquerque, and several others.
On Friday, Orrick extended the protection to those new plaintiffs, ensuring billions in federal dollars will continue to flow into municipalities openly defying federal law.
At issue is Trump’s executive order, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, which directs the Department of Homeland Security to condition federal funding on local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Orrick declared the policy unconstitutional, arguing it violates the 10th Amendment by “coercing” local governments into enforcing federal law. It’s not the first time he’s taken this stance—back in 2017, Orrick also struck down Trump’s sanctuary funding order. In April, he previewed this latest ruling by writing, “Here we are again.”
The judge went further this time, barring the administration from attaching immigration-related conditions to federal grant programs, even as the White House insists that sanctuary policies obstruct law enforcement and put communities at risk.
Sanctuary city leaders, for their part, argue that cooperating with ICE would erode trust with immigrant communities and discourage victims or witnesses of crimes from coming forward. Orrick echoed that claim, saying the threat of losing funds caused “irreparable injury” by creating budget uncertainty and undermining local relationships.
But the larger issue remains: whether cities and counties should have the power to ignore federal law while still cashing federal checks. The Trump administration maintains that it has both the authority and the obligation to enforce immigration laws nationwide—and that jurisdictions shielding illegal aliens, including violent offenders, are undermining public safety.
The ruling is now headed for appeal, but the implications are significant. If upheld, Orrick’s order essentially allows local governments to pick and choose which federal laws they will follow, while expecting Washington to foot the bill. For sanctuary cities, it’s a win. For the rule of law, the picture is far murkier.
