Lawyers representing San Francisco and Santa Clara counties urged a federal judge on Wednesday to temporarily block President Trump’s executive actions aimed at stripping federal funds from local governments that implement sanctuary policies.
During a 40-minute hearing, Judge William H. Orrick expressed his inclination to grant the injunction, although he refrained from announcing an immediate ruling, indicating he would decide swiftly.
President Trump’s initial executive order, issued on his first day in office, directed the Department of Homeland Security and state attorneys general to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions—those that restrict local law enforcement’s collaboration with immigration enforcement—would lose federal funding.
This directive was expanded in February to encompass all taxpayer funds to sanctuary jurisdictions. Additionally, a memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed the Department of Justice to cease financial assistance to municipalities with such policies and to investigate local officials who might obstruct immigration enforcement.
The lawsuit, initiated on February 7, involves 16 cities and counties nationwide, led by Santa Clara and San Francisco, and requests the court to block all actions by the Trump administration regarding the withholding of funds.
In their legal challenge, the counties argue the government’s threats are unconstitutional and reference previous litigation. Notably, in 2017, appellate courts ruled in favor of these counties and the city of Chicago in related cases against a similar executive order issued during Trump’s first term. Remarkably, Judge Orrick presided over that case as well.
During the hearing, Deputy City Attorney Karun Tilak emphasized the court’s previous determinations that the government’s directive to eliminate federal grants for sanctuary jurisdictions was unconstitutional.
On behalf of the Trump administration, attorney Caroline McGuire contended that an injunction would be premature since no federal funds had yet been withheld, suggesting that the counties could not demonstrate tangible harm from the executive order.
McGuire remarked, “Without knowing which programs are going to be impacted upon what conditions, under what basis. It’s difficult to evaluate the contours of how preliminary relief would be appropriate right now.”
In contrast, Tilak argued that the ongoing uncertainty and the looming threat of losing federal reimbursements were already imposing significant challenges on the counties’ budgeting and planning processes.
He noted that local governments are accruing daily costs contingent on anticipated federal assistance, asserting, “If that reimbursement were frozen or if those funds were taken away, that would harm their ability to carry out those programs, and for present purposes, creates an existential uncertainty about whether they should continue funding those programs.”
Tilak further elaborated on the urgency, stating that many jurisdictions are required to finalize their budgets for the next fiscal year by the end of June.
In previous rulings during Trump’s first term, the plaintiffs had only secured injunctions when they could identify specific withheld funds and articulate the corresponding harms.
However, Orrick appeared to lean towards the counties’ viewpoint, indicating that while the government had not yet moved to withhold funds, the nature of the current executive orders was far-reaching. The orders threatened to cut off all federal funding—not merely specific law enforcement grants—to sanctuary jurisdictions.
He remarked, “The distinction, though, that I think will be hard for you to get around is that the executive order speaks to all federal funds. It’s not speaking to a discrete grant. And so that becomes coercive, as the plaintiffs argue, to governments that rely on federal funding for health care and other things that are at risk.”
Should an injunction be granted, the government argued that it should apply solely to the jurisdictions that filed the lawsuit.
San Francisco and Santa Clara counties advocate that their sanctuary policies enhance community safety by fostering cooperation between local law enforcement and all residents, including those without legal status.
They contend that the federal government’s aggressive deportation efforts and attempts to coerce local jurisdictions into compliance are detrimental to their communities.
Tony LoPresti, Santa Clara County counsel, emphasized the broader implications of federal overreach, stating, “The aggressive federal overreach by the Trump Administration is creating fear and insecurity in communities across this country.”
LoPresti affirmed their resolve by saying, “We are asking the Court to intervene to protect the well-established constitutional right of local governments to use local resources for local priorities.”
He concluded, “We will not stand idly by while the Federal Administration attempts to bully counties and cities out of implementing policies that have worked for decades to advance community well-being and public safety.”
image source from：https://www.kqed.org/news/12037376/sf-santa-clara-counties-ask-us-court-halt-trumps-sanctuary-city-funding-freeze
