San Francisco v. Trump

In Spring 2025, the Trump administration issued executive orders directing federal agencies to compile a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions and cut off their funding. Fifty local governments, led by the City and County of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, California, are suing to protect the over $10 billion at risk for them as a result. These funds go toward police services, public safety, health, and more, for over 28 million people. Public Rights Project represents almost two dozen jurisdictions in the case.

Under what are commonly referred to as sanctuary policies, dozens of cities and counties limit how local resources are used to help enforce federal immigration law. Such laws and policies ensure local resources are prioritized for local law enforcement and public safety — although regardless of local policies in place, the federal government can and has enforced federal immigration law in these jurisdictions. Some local governments prefer not to use the term “sanctuary jurisdiction.”

So far, the court has sided with plaintiffs, issuing orders that have blocked the federal government from carrying out these executive orders and pulling all funding from recipients solely on the basis of being sanctuary jurisdictions while the case continues.

February 7, 2025: The lawsuit was filed under the leadership of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which led a coalition of local governments that also include King County, Washington, and New Haven, Connecticut.

It argues that forcing local governments to aid in immigration enforcement violates the constitutional separation of powers and the 10th Amendment, which prevents the federal government from commandeering local and state resources to enforce federal programs or laws.

February 27, 2025: Eleven additional jurisdictions joined the lawsuit, including Oakland, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz in California; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Seattle, Washington.

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 the local government plaintiffs’ personnel explaining how federal funding is essential for providing and maintaining public services in their communities.

Read the motion.

April 24, 2025: The judge granted a preliminary injunction a day after it was argued by Oakland Deputy City Attorney Karun Tilak. The decision noted that 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.

July 8, 2025: The lawsuit grew to 50 plaintiffs as the coalition asked the court for permission to file an updated, expanded complaint adding 34 more local governments.

One example: Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, said it risked losing $850,000 earmarked for its police department, sexual-assault-kit processing, violence prevention, and opioid treatment programs — funding put in doubt after the administration identified the county as a sanctuary jurisdiction, even after it later removed its public list.

Read the second amended complaint.

July 29, 2025: The local government plaintiffs filed a request for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to extend the relief that was previously granted to 16 local government plaintiffs to the 34 new local government plaintiffs seeking to join the lawsuit.

August 22, 2026: 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. It also prevents the administration from imposing certain agency-wide immigration conditions on grants for the local government plaintiffs. Without these protections, these conditions could require the plaintiffs to comply with immigration enforcement activities that are unrelated to the nature of the federal grants in question.

This is the second preliminary injunction issued in this case.

Read the decision