San Francisco and a coalition of jurisdictions have secured a series of federal court orders blocking the Trump administration from retaliating against “sanctuary” cities and counties through federal funding cuts. This ongoing litigation establishes binding precedent on the constitutional limits of executive power over local government cooperation with immigration enforcement.
What changed
San Francisco sued the Trump Administration over its executive orders on immigration enforcement and defunding sanctuary jurisdictions. On April 24, 2025, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of certain sections of the President’s Executive Orders 14159 (“Protecting the American People Against Invasion”) and 14218 (“Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders”) and its related agency directive - February 5, 2025 Attorney General Memorandum “Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directives.”
On May 3, 2025, the federal court issued a further order clarifying its preliminary injunction. Subsequent to this order, the federal court again had to clarify in an order its preliminary injunction on May 9, 2025 because the administration issued a new executive order (Executive Order 14287) that repackaged the same threats of withholding funding to sanctuary jurisdictions.
The plaintiffs include San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Portland, New Haven, King County, Oakland, Emeryville, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Monterey County, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Santa Fe, and Seattle.
Why it matters
For local government counsel, practitioners advising municipalities on immigration policy, and those litigating constitutional challenges to executive overreach: this decision establishes in the Northern District of California that the executive cannot unilaterally impose immigration-cooperation conditions on congressionally authorized federal grants.
San Francisco receives approximately $3.7 billion in annual funding from the federal government, and a loss of those funds would wreak havoc on the delivery of critical city and county services. The preliminary injunction protects those funds from being withheld based on the jurisdiction’s choice not to assist ICE in civil immigration enforcement.
The repeated clarifications (April 24, May 3, May 9, 2025) signal that the administration has attempted workarounds and repackaging of the same funding-threat language. The court has had to keep enjoining the same conduct dressed in different executive order language—a pattern relevant to practitioners tracking how the administration tests the boundaries of judicial orders.
Way forward
- Monitor the Ninth Circuit appeal. The government has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Track the appellate docket for briefing schedules and oral argument dates.
- Verify your jurisdiction’s litigation posture. If your city or county is part of the coalition or is considering similar sanctuary policies, coordinate with counsel handling the San Francisco case. The decision binds adjudicators in the Northern District; other districts may follow, but are not bound.
- Document federal agency directives. Collect and preserve any local notices, executive orders, or demands from DHS, DOJ, or other agencies related to federal funding conditions tied to immigration cooperation. These are evidence of ongoing enforcement attempts despite the injunction.
- Expect continued creative repackaging. As the May 9, 2025 clarification shows, expect the administration to issue new executive orders or directives attempting to impose the same functional result. Legal challenges will likely follow each iteration.
Disclaimer
This article summarizes publicly available court filings and agency announcements and is not legal advice. Folaform is a software platform, not a law firm. Do not rely on this summary alone; consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for guidance on compliance, litigation strategy, or local policy. Federal immigration policy and precedent can change without notice. Verify all claims against the primary sources linked above and applicable court orders before making decisions on behalf of your jurisdiction or clients.