Judge Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Withhold Funds from Sanctuary Cities

In a now-familiar pattern of judicial interference, a federal judge with deep ties to the Obama administration has once again halted President Donald Trump’s effort to crack down on sanctuary cities that openly defy federal immigration law. Judge William Orrick, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2013, issued a ruling that prevents the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The ruling is the latest chapter in a years-long legal battle between the Trump administration and left-leaning cities and counties that have declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants — often shielding them from deportation, even after they’ve committed serious crimes. Orrick’s decision blocks the White House from enforcing executive orders aimed at holding these jurisdictions financially accountable.

This isn’t the first time Judge Orrick has intervened to protect sanctuary cities. Back in 2017, during Trump’s first term, he issued a nearly identical ruling against Executive Order 13768, titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” That order aimed to deny federal grant money to cities that obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

Orrick ruled then — as he has now — that the executive order was unconstitutional, claiming it violated the Tenth Amendment by effectively “coercing” local governments into enforcing federal laws. But critics argue that the ruling oversteps the judiciary’s bounds and prioritizes political ideology over public safety and the rule of law.

Trump allies argue that federal funds should not be given to jurisdictions that undermine federal immigration efforts, especially when those same jurisdictions harbor individuals who are in the country illegally — some of whom have committed additional crimes after local law enforcement refused to cooperate with ICE.

Sanctuary jurisdictions are cities, counties, or even entire states that have passed local laws or policies to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These include refusing to honor ICE detainer requests (which ask local jails to hold suspected illegal immigrants for up to 48 hours so ICE can take custody) and prohibiting local officers from inquiring about a person’s immigration status.

Prominent sanctuary cities include San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., among others. In some cases, local officials have released dangerous criminals — including violent offenders — rather than comply with ICE detainers.

For example, in 2015, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had been previously deported five times and had a long criminal record. The city had refused to turn him over to ICE due to its sanctuary policy.

Despite the public outcry, judges like Orrick have consistently ruled in favor of sanctuary policies that critics say enable lawlessness, tie the hands of law enforcement, and endanger American citizens.

Judge Orrick’s latest decision concerns Trump’s renewed effort to cut federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, particularly those that actively interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The ruling came after a coalition of liberal jurisdictions, including San Francisco and San Diego County, filed lawsuits claiming the executive action would cause “irreparable harm” to their cities.

In his opinion, Orrick argued that Trump’s order closely mirrored the 2017 executive action he previously blocked. He cited “potential constitutional violations” and warned of financial instability for the cities if federal funds were withheld. Orrick also expressed concern that the Trump administration’s policies could erode trust between local governments and immigrant communities — a familiar talking point used by open-borders advocates.

What the ruling essentially does is force American taxpayers — many of whom do not support sanctuary policies — to continue subsidizing jurisdictions that flout federal law.

The court also ordered the White House to inform all federal agencies of the ruling by the following Monday, effectively neutralizing any immediate enforcement of Trump’s policy.

President Trump and his allies have remained firm in their commitment to ending sanctuary city protections. Former acting ICE Director Tom Homan has been one of the most vocal critics of sanctuary policies, stating bluntly that officials who shield illegal immigrants from ICE should be prosecuted for obstruction.

“There is no place in a law-abiding society for government officials who pick and choose what federal laws they want to follow,” Homan has said. “Sanctuary policies don’t protect immigrant communities — they put them at risk.”

To fight back, the Trump administration formed a sanctuary jurisdiction task force, designed to identify, monitor, and pursue legal remedies against cities that obstruct federal immigration enforcement. Attorney General Pam Bondi also moved quickly to halt discretionary funding to jurisdictions failing to comply with federal law.

This is all part of a larger Trump agenda that seeks to return power to lawful institutions, protect American communities, and stop the abuse of U.S. immigration systems. In 2019 alone, ICE reported over 140,000 immigration-related arrests, with more than 90% of those arrested having criminal convictions or pending charges — yet sanctuary policies continue to hinder ICE operations.

The cost of sanctuary policies is not just legal or political — it’s financial and social. Cities like New York, which have embraced sanctuary status, are now overwhelmed by the influx of illegal immigrants, particularly after waves of asylum seekers were bused in from the southern border.

New York Mayor Eric Adams has pleaded for federal assistance as the city has spent billions of dollars providing food, housing, and healthcare to migrants, often at the expense of local services for U.S. citizens. Meanwhile, crime has surged, and neighborhoods have been disrupted by makeshift shelters and overflowing migrant facilities.

While Democrats portray sanctuary policies as compassionate, critics argue they create magnet cities that encourage more illegal immigration, strain local budgets, and undermine the rule of law.

Judge Orrick’s ruling is just one part of a much larger ideological battle being waged in the courts and across the country. At stake is the fundamental question of whether federal immigration laws — enacted by Congress and enforced by the executive branch — will be upheld, or whether unelected judges and activist city officials will be allowed to defy them without consequence.

President Trump has made it clear: federal funds should not support lawless behavior. Cities that undermine federal immigration law should not receive the hard-earned tax dollars of American workers. The judge’s ruling may be a setback, but the administration’s resolve remains.

As Trump continues to fight for national sovereignty, border security, and the safety of American citizens, this legal battle underscores why judicial appointments matter — and why reclaiming the rule of law from activist judges will be a cornerstone of his second term.