May 28, 2025
San Francisco v. Trump: Sanctuary cities fact sheet
Toplines
Sanctuary policies make us all safer. Trump’s attacks will do the opposite.
These executive orders are fear tactics — plain and simple.
The Trump administration’s actions are unconstitutional and defy decades of legal precedent.
Local governments have real power to stand up and push back.
Cities have won this fight before — and we will win again.
Our case is about defending the right of cities and counties to make decisions about how they use local resources — without interference from the federal government.
Background
Sanctuary policies make us all safer. Trump’s attacks will do the opposite.
The evidence shows sanctuary policies protect everyone.
Sanctuary counties experience 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people than non-sanctuary counties.
When local police work closely with ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement), undocumented immigrants are significantly less likely to report crimes.
At least 40% of Latinos surveyed were less likely to provide information to police because they feared exposing themselves, family or friends to deportation.
In Boston, homicides and shooting rates reached historic lows after adopting sanctuary policies in 2014, and both property and violent crime have also steadily declined.
Research shows that when local police aren’t viewed as extensions of ICE, neighborhoods are safer. People are more likely to report crimes, cooperate with investigations and come forward as witnesses.
But when fear of deportation silences victims and community members, it jeopardizes public safety and law enforcement’s ability to deliver justice.
Sanctuary policies also enhance economic stability and public health by ensuring that all residents feel welcome and can fully contribute to civil society. Immigrants are workers, business owners and taxpayers who help drive local economies. When people feel safe, businesses grow, families stay healthy and public systems work better.
These executive orders are fear tactics — plain and simple.
The Trump administration is once again asserting power it doesn’t have to coerce compliance with its extreme federal immigration agenda.
It’s a blatantly illegal attempt to sidestep Congress and bully local governments into doing ICE’s job by threatening to cut off billions in federal funding.
The administration’s threatened cuts would hurt hundreds of communities that rely on these dollars for critical services and programs like roads and transit infrastructure, homelessness prevention, gang violence prevention, disaster relief, health care, opioid treatment, victim services and emergency response.
Federal funds are not political favors. They are taxpayer dollars meant for local communities, not ransom.
The Trump administration’s actions are unconstitutional and defy decades of legal precedent.
The administration is targeting jurisdictions that follow the law but do not go beyond what it requires.
Despite what this administration claims, sanctuary policies are legal. The courts rejected these tactics before, and the law hasn’t changed.
In 2017, when the Trump administration first tried to strip funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, courts ruled they violated the 10th Amendment (prohibiting the federal government from commandeering state and local officials to carry out federal duties), the Fifth Amendment (guaranteeing the right to due process), the spending clause (limiting how federal funds can be conditioned) and the separation of powers doctrine (dividing power among the three government branches).
The law is crystal clear: the administration can’t commandeer local officials to do the federal government’s job.
Local governments have real power to stand up and push back.
The federal government doesn’t have the resources or capacity to carry out its agenda without commandeering local law enforcement.
16 local jurisdictions representing more than 10 million residents are challenging this federal abuse of power, with support from Public Rights Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that helps local government officials fight for civil rights. These leaders are choosing evidence-based, community-first approaches to safety — and the data backs them up.
Our coalition of cities and counties will continue to defend the right of local leaders to make policy decisions, spend city/county funds and deploy local law enforcement resources to advance the needs, values and safety of their communities.
We’re proud to stand with other local governments asserting their right to govern without coercion and to ensure federal funds can’t be used as a weapon against local decisions made in the best interest of residents.
Cities have won this fight before — and we will win again.
We saw proof of that on April 24, when a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the executive order, preserving funding for now.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County. Public Rights Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that helps local governments protect civil rights, is representing Minneapolis, New Haven, Portland, St. Paul, Santa Fe and Seattle in this case.
The judge agreed that the communities faced immediate harm and are likely to prevail, as the administration’s orders are just as unconstitutional today as in 2017.
But the injunction only applies to the 16 jurisdictions participating in the case. Hundreds more are at risk.
This is the moment for more cities and counties to unite in collective action — they can defend the Constitution and their communities at the same time.
Lawsuit details
Case overview
President Donald Trump has issued three executive order threatening to defund cities with “sanctuary” policies. The orders also direct his Department of Justice to pursue civil and criminal legal action against these jurisdictions. Federal agencies have already taken steps to withhold or place conditions on vast swaths of taxpayer dollars.
The Trump administration incorrectly argues these officials are obstructing justice, and that it has broad power to punish those who don’t comply. Local leaders are following laws and policies proven to protect public safety, health and economies.
A coalition of 16 local governments sued the Trump administration to defend sanctuary cities from federal interference.
The administration is demanding that communities with sanctuary policies aid in ICE raids or lose federal funding. That’s extortion.
Our case is about defending the right of cities and counties to make decisions about how they use their local resources — without interference from the federal government.
The cities and counties are:
CA: San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Emeryville, Monterey County, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Santa Cruz
CT: New Haven
MN: Minneapolis, St. Paul
NM: Santa Fe
OR: Portland
WA: King County, Seattle
Issue background
There is no single legal definition of a sanctuary city or county. Generally, the term refers to jurisdictions that limit their involvement in federal immigration enforcement to prioritize the security and well-being of all residents. These policies vary, but many prohibit local law enforcement from asking about immigration status, detaining individuals solely based on civil federal immigration requests or sharing certain personal data with ICE.
Sanctuary policies emerged in the 1980s, when churches and cities responded to the federal government’s refusal to grant asylum to refugees fleeing violence in Central America. Over time, cities expanded these policies to strengthen public safety and community trust.
Today, more than 600 jurisdictions have adopted some version of them for a range of reasons: to ensure undocumented residents can report crimes without fear, focus limited law enforcement resources on serious threats and safeguard civil liberties.
Why this case matters
The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to decide how federal money is spent.
The Trump administration can’t use funding as leverage to coerce local governments enforcing federal priorities.
The cities and counties standing up are protecting the independence of local governments and ensuring they can serve their communities without political interference.
If the federal government succeeds, that would set a precedent allowing federal funds to be weaponized to advance partisan agendas.
Local leaders must be free to govern based on facts, not fear. Politicizing local decision-making, especially through federal threats, undermines what unites us as Americans.
We all want safety, stability and equal protection under the law. The data shows that sanctuary policies make this possible, while upholding the constitutional balance of power that defines American democracy.
What’s at stake
The administration’s threatened cuts would remove over $10 billion in taxpayer dollars from the plaintiff cities and counties, hurting their residents.
In San Francisco, one of its leading hospitals and trauma centers for 1.5 million residents could lose more than $800 million in federal support.
In Minneapolis, youth violence and sexual assault prevention programs funded by the Department of Justice hang in the balance.
Federal funding also enables local law enforcement to do their jobs. The cuts would strip resources from emergency response, victim services, gang violence prevention and other critical public safety programs that benefit all residents and ensure cities remain stable and secure.
Who benefits from this lawsuit
Cities and counties that want their communities to be safe, healthy and economically vibrant places where all people can thrive.
Advocates defending the rule of law and constitutional limits on executive power.
Legal milestones & updates
February 7, 2025: The City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara, along with a coalition of cities and counties, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in San Francisco v. Trump. The lawsuitt challenges its attempts to cut or condition federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. The suit was subsequently amended on February 27 to add more jurisdictions as plaintiffs.
March 17, 2025: The coalition of cities and counties suing the administration filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to block efforts to withhold, freeze or impose conditions on federal funds based on sanctuary status. The motion argues that recent executive orders and a related directive memo violate the Constitution’s separation of powers, the spending clause, the 10th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs also submitted 36 declarations from local officials outlining how essential federal funding is to providing and maintaining public services.
April 23, 2025: San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Karun Tilak, a former PRP fellow, presented an oral argument in support of the preliminary injunction.
April 24, 2025: The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of irreparable harm. The judge cited budgetary uncertainty, potential violations of constitutional rights and the threat to public trust between local governments and their communities.
May 3, 2025: The court issued a follow-up order clarifying the scope of the preliminary injunction in light of a new executive order issued on April 28. Although the new executive order threatening to label sanctuary jurisdictions wasn’t blocked outright, the court ruled that the administration can’t use those designations to cut existing funding, as that would violate the terms of the earlier injunction.
###
About Public Rights Project
As a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, Public Rights Project helps local government officials fight for civil rights. We do this by building their capacity to protect and advance civil rights, convening and connecting them on issues of civil rights, and providing legal representation to governments to help them win in court on behalf of their residents. Since our founding, we’ve built a network of over 1,300 partners, including elected officials and 227 government offices across all 50 states, and helped recover over $46 million in relief for marginalized people. www.publicrightsproject.org
