The Trump administration’s illegal overreach attempts to cut funding to sanctuary jurisdictions to coerce enforcement of federal civil immigration law.
OAKLAND, CA (April 22, 2025) — Public Rights Project issued the following statement today in advance of tomorrow’s hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s unconstitutional attempts to withhold critical federal funding unless local governments assist the federal government with its immigration enforcement responsibilities.
Initially filed on February 7, the lawsuit is led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County and includes 14 additional jurisdictions across the country. Collectively, these 16 jurisdictions are home to nearly 10 million residents. Public Rights Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that works with local governments to protect civil rights, represents the cities of Minneapolis, New Haven, Portland, St. Paul, Santa Fe and Seattle in this case.
The lawsuit challenges the Trump administration’s targeting of jurisdictions that have adopted policies that limit the use of local resources to aid federal immigration officials in carrying out civil immigration enforcement, often referred to as “sanctuary” policies. These policies focus local resources on local priorities and help ensure that all community members, regardless of immigration status, can feel safe interacting with local law enforcement without fear that local governments will cooperate with the federal government to take immigration action against them. Sanctuary laws improve public safety and have been repeatedly upheld by federal courts.
“The law is clear: the federal government can’t coerce local law enforcement to do ICE’s job,” said Jill Habig, founder and CEO of Public Rights Project. “The Trump administration’s attempt to destroy sanctuary cities by stripping funding is an illegal attack on public safety and local authority. We’re proud to stand alongside our government partners to defend their communities and policies that help people thrive.”
Since taking office on January 20, Donald Trump has issued executive orders and taken other administrative actions to compel local jurisdictions to carry out the president’s policy priorities. These actions include threats to withhold federal funding from localities — including critical funds that support local efforts to serve vulnerable residents, promote public safety and prepare for emergencies — unless they assist with implementation of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement agenda. The Department of Justice has also filed lawsuits against states and localities with policies that limit local assistance with federal civil immigration enforcement.
“The federal administration is illegally asserting power it does not have, as courts already determined during the first Trump Administration,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. “They want to commandeer local police officers as federal ICE agents, while strong-arming local officials with threats of withholding federal funds that support our police department, our efforts to address homelessness and our public health system. As we have seen, the Trump administration has now deported someone by error, and ICE agents have unlawfully arrested U.S. citizens. They cannot force local jurisdictions to join them in their reckless and illegal deportation efforts.”
The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will be held tomorrow, Wednesday, April 23, at 2 p.m. PT. More information and livestream access can be found here. Representatives from Public Rights Project will be available for interviews following the hearing.
Background
Sanctuary laws generally limit the use of local resources — such as public employees’ time, money and facilities — to assist with federal civil immigration enforcement. This includes preventing the forced use of local law enforcement to question, detain or arrest individuals for civil immigration violations and limiting sharing confidential personal information with immigration authorities.
Sanctuary laws have been in place for decades and seek to improve public safety. Studies have consistently shown immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, and sanctuary jurisdictions either see no increase in crime or have lower crime rates.
As a result of sanctuary laws, crime victims and witnesses are willing to come forward and report crimes to police. Trust between law enforcement and communities improves public safety. Eroding trust and targeting hard-working families with threats of deportation does the opposite. It makes individuals fearful to report crimes, bring their children to school or obtain needed health care.
Sanctuary laws do not protect criminals. They prioritize using local law enforcement resources to fight crime, not do the job of the federal government. Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility, not the responsibility of state or local governments. Sanctuary laws don’t interfere with or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement in any way.
During the first Trump administration, San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara sued the federal government after the federal administration attempted to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions based on their sanctuary policies. In that matter and subsequent cases, federal district courts and the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with San Francisco and Santa Clara San Francisco and Santa Clara that the conditions the Trump administration attempted to place on federal funding were unconstitutional.
The motion for preliminary injunction filed on March 17 asks the Court to prevent the federal government from enforcing the illegal executive orders and agency directives targeting sanctuary jurisdictions.
In addition to the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, the lawsuit is also brought by:
Emeryville, Calif.
King County, Wash.
Monterey County, Calif.
Minneapolis, Minn.
New Haven, Conn.
Oakland, Calif.
Portland, Ore.
St. Paul, Minn.
Sacramento, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
San José, Calif.
Santa Cruz, Calif.
Santa Fe, N.M.
Seattle, Wash.
The case is City and County of San Francisco, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-cv-01350.
###
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.
