A federal judge in San Francisco has called out what he sees as a recycled power move by President Donald Trump—this time dressed up in a new executive order—aimed at stripping funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. The ruling? A firm no-go.
The confrontation stems from Trump’s persistent attempt to penalize cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Sixteen of those jurisdictions, including San Francisco, Seattle, Santa Fe, and Minneapolis, previously secured an injunction halting the federal government from cutting their funding. When Trump unveiled a new executive order just days after that injunction, directing the Attorney General to build a blacklist of sanctuary jurisdictions and consider pulling their funding, it triggered immediate legal alarms.
Judge William Orrick, who also blocked a similar 2017 Trump order during the former president’s first term, didn’t buy the rebranded effort. Though he acknowledged minor differences in wording, he made it clear: if this new order is used to threaten funds with no direct link to immigration policy, it’s unconstitutional—same as before.
He warned that the surrounding context suggests a troubling motive: an attempt to pressure local governments into submission. “Coercive threats dressed as policy tools are still unconstitutional,” Orrick wrote.
City Attorney David Chiu of San Francisco welcomed the ruling, stating it confirms that executive power cannot be weaponized against jurisdictions for refusing to enforce federal immigration laws on local terms.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice stayed silent.
The legal tug-of-war continues, but one thing is clear: new stationery doesn’t change the law.
