San Francisco v. Trump

On Feb. 7, 2025, a coalition of local governments filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to protect sanctuary jurisdictions from federal overreach of immigration enforcement.

The coalition is led by the City and County of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, Calif. The original plaintiffs also included King County, Wash., and the City of New Haven, Conn.

Sanctuary laws and policies ensure city and state resources are prioritized for local law enforcement and public safety. However, recent executive orders issued by the Trump administration instruct federal agencies to cut off federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. The U.S. Department of Justice also directed its personnel to investigate and prosecute sanctuary city officials who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit argues that forcing local governments to aid in immigration enforcement violates the 10th Amendment and other constitutional protections, including the separation of powers.

On Feb. 27, 2025, 11 more plaintiffs joined the lawsuit from the following jurisdictions in California: Emeryville, Monterey County, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Santa Cruz, as well as Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., Santa Fe, N. Mex, and Seattle, Wash.

Public Rights Project is representing the Cities of Minneapolis, New Haven, Portland, St. Paul, Santa Fe, and Seattle.

Update:
On March 17, 2025, the coalition filed a request for a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration, seeking to block its efforts to withhold, freeze, or put conditions on federal funds for sanctuary jurisdictions. The coalition argues that recent executive orders and a sanctuary jurisdiction directive memo violate the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the 5th Amendment.

As part of their request, the coalition submitted 36 declarations from members explaining how federal funding is essential for providing and maintaining public services in their communities. 

Read the request.

Update:
On April 23, Oakland Deputy City Attorney and former PRP fellow Karun Tilak asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction. The following day, the judge granted the preliminary injunction saying the cities and counties demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm in the form of budgetary uncertainty, “deprivation of constitutional rights,” and undermining trust between the local governments and the communities they serve.

Read the decision.

Update:

On July 8, the coalition filed a motion to amend, seeking leave to file an amended lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s unconstitutional immigration policies. The new complaint includes an additional 34 local governments, bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 50. The perspective plaintiffs represent more than 28 million residents across the country. 

President Donald Trump has issued three executive orders targeting jurisdictions that do not enforce his immigration policies. He has directed federal agencies to review congressionally approved funding for suspension and termination unless communities comply with his orders. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has ordered its personnel to investigate and prosecute local officials who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The pending amended complaint includes several local governments that provide evidence about the impact of federal funding losses. In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for example, $850,000 in federal funding is at risk after the administration identified the county as a sanctuary jurisdiction. Although the administration later took down its list of sanctuary jurisdictions, the county is unsure if it will actually receive this critical funding earmarked for the police department, sexual assault kit processing, violence prosecution and prevention, and opioid addiction treatment.

The prospective plaintiffs are:

• Alameda County, Calif.
• Albany, NY
• Albuquerque, N. Mex.
• Allegheny County, Penn.
• Baltimore, Md.
• Benicia, Calif.
• Bend, Ore.
• Berkeley, Calif.
• Boston, Mass.
• Cambridge, Mass.
• Cathedral City, Calif.
• Chicago, Ill.
• Columbus, Ohio
• Culver City, Calif.
• Dane County, Wis.
• Denver, Colo.
• Healdsburg, Calif.
• Hennepin County, Minn.
• Los Angeles, Calif.
• Marin County, Calif.
• Menlo Park, Calif.
• Multnomah County, Ore.
• Pacifica, Calif.
• Palo Alto, Calif.
• Petaluma, Calif.
• Pierce County, Wash.
• Richmond, Calif.
• Rochester, NY
• Rohnert Park, Calif.
• San Mateo County, Calif.
• Santa Rosa, Calif.
• Sonoma County, Calif.
• Watsonville, Calif.
• Wilsonville, Ore.

Read the second amended complaint.

Update:

On July 29, 2025, the coalition of local governments filed a request for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to block the Trump administration from withholding, freezing, or adding new conditions to federal funds for the 34 new plaintiffs seeking to join the lawsuit. The administration has labeled these local governments “sanctuary jurisdictions,” or because they are located in states it has described as “sanctuary states.” In reality, these jurisdictions have policies that limit the use of local resources to carry out federal immigration enforcement. 

The additional jurisdictions are seeking the same relief that already applies to the 16 jurisdictions in the case. The growing number of local governments speaking out partly reflects the federal government’s decision to publish a list it later took down — and ongoing attacks on  policies and funding for communities.

Update:

On Aug. 22, the court issued a preliminary injunction extending protection to 34 newly added plaintiffs. The ruling blocks the Trump administration from withholding or freezing federal funding, or from imposing unrelated immigration enforcement conditions on municipalities and counties it has labeled as so-called ‘sanctuary jurisdictions.’

This is the second preliminary injunction issued in this case. 

Read the decision