A federal judge in California banned the Trump administration on Thursday from denying or adjusting the use of federal funds to “protect” jurisdictions, saying part of Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the injunctions sought in San Francisco, as well as a dozen municipalities that restrict working with federal immigration efforts.
Orrick wrote that the defendants are prohibited from taking any action “directly or indirectly to withhold, freeze or condition federal funds” and the government must provide written notice to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.
An executive order issued by Trump directed Atti. General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem withheld federal funds from the shelter. The second order directs each federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “the so-called “sanctuary” policy of the church to avoid giving illegal foreigners exempt from deportation.”
At a hearing Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was too early for a judge to approve the injunction when the government did not take any lawsuits to withhold a specific amount or set conditions for a specific grant.
But Orrick, nominated by President Obama, said it was essentially a government lawyer who brought it in Trump’s first term when the Republicans issued a similar order.
“Their fear of law enforcement is even stronger than in 2017,” Orik wrote, Bondy, other federal agencies and the Justice Department’s enforcement orders filed lawsuits and directives against lawsuits in Chicago and New York.
San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order, with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing to the lower court when the president signed an executive order threatening to cut funds for the “sanitation city” beyond his mandate.
The plaintiff was satisfied with the judge’s order.
“As we continue to see a huge federal over-division, the court’s ruling confirms that local governments can serve their mission and maintain trust in the communities they care about,” Santa Clara County attorney Tony Lopresti said in a statement.
It is not clear whether federal agencies will comply with the order. On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy reminded recipients of federal shipping funds that they are expected to comply with federal laws, including immigration enforcement or face potential consequences.
The department did not immediately respond to emails seeking comments.
There is no strict definition for asylum policies or sanctuary cities, but the term generally describes limited cooperation with immigration and customs enforcement. The ICE enforces immigration laws nationwide but seeks state and local help to remind federal authorities to deport and detain the person until federal officials are detained.
Leaders of the shelter jurisdiction say their communities are safer because immigrants think they can communicate with local police without having to worry about being deported. It is also a way municipalities focus their dollars on local crimes, they say.
In addition to San Francisco and Santa Clara counties including the third plaintiff, the city of San Jose, there are 13 other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including Seattle and King County in Washington. Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Har wrote for the Associated Press.
