Judge William Orrick blocks funding limits on sanctuary cities

Key Takeaways

• Judge William Orrick blocked Trump’s orders withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities on April 24, 2025.
• Ruling cites violations of separation of powers, Spending Clause, Fifth and Tenth Amendments in executive orders.
• Affected cities—including San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland—retain critical federal funding for services and local autonomy.

On April 24, 2025, a federal court delivered an important decision affecting immigration policy across the United States 🇺🇸. U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued an order stopping President Trump and his administration from blocking or attaching special strings to federal funds meant for “sanctuary” cities and counties—places that do not fully help federal officials with immigration enforcement.

This ruling is a turning point in the fight between local governments, which want to protect immigrants in their communities, and the federal government, which has been trying to push tougher immigration rules. To understand what happened, why it matters, and how it could shape future immigration policy, let’s look at all the details, the background, and what it means for cities, officials, and immigrants themselves.

What Did Judge William Orrick Decide?

Judge William Orrick, who works in California and was appointed by former President Barack Obama, gave a strong “preliminary injunction” on April 24. This is a legal order that holds things in place until the court can fully hear a case. The judge told President Trump’s team that they are not allowed to withhold, freeze, or attach extra requirements to federal funds promised to sanctuary cities and counties.

Judge Orrick explained that President Trump’s executive orders—the orders meant to take away money from sanctuary jurisdictions—are not allowed under the U.S. Constitution. The judge’s order is not new for him. He made a similar decision back in 2017 during President Trump’s first term, when another executive order tried the same thing.

This time, however, Judge William Orrick found that the “well-founded fear” of cities and counties was even stronger than before. In his written decision, he said, “Here we are again,” noting that local governments were right to be worried about losing federal funds because of their policies.

As ordered by Judge William Orrick, the Trump administration must send out a notice to every federal agency by April 28 to make sure they know about the ruling and do not try to block funds for sanctuary cities.

The Executive Orders at the Center of the Case

This court fight began over two key executive orders signed by President Trump:

1. First order: This directed Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to hold back federal money from cities and counties that won’t fully cooperate with immigration enforcement. The idea was to pressure local leaders to help catch people who the federal government may want to deport.

2. Second order: Called “Ending Tax Subsidies of Open Borders,” this told every federal agency to make sure they do not give federal payments to states and cities if those payments could support sanctuary policies. In other words, any form of federal help—whether for police, schools, or other programs—could be blocked if the local government was labeled a sanctuary jurisdiction.

According to the judge, these orders were meant to force cities and counties to do what the federal government wanted. But local officials argued this was not only unfair, but also against the Constitution.

What Are Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary Policies?

There is no single, official definition for “sanctuary city,” “sanctuary county,” or “sanctuary policy.” But in general, these words mean cities or counties choose not to fully help Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.

ICE enforces immigration laws at the national level. Often, they ask local police to tell them if immigrants who might be subject to deportation are in custody, and sometimes ICE wants those local police to hold such people until federal officers can pick them up. Sanctuary policies might say local police won’t ask about immigration status, won’t inform ICE when someone is released, or won’t hold people just because the federal officials ask.

Supporters of sanctuary policies argue these rules help make communities safer. They say immigrants are more likely to cooperate with police—such as reporting crimes or acting as witnesses—if they don’t fear being turned over to ICE. City leaders also point out that their police forces can focus on local safety instead of doing the work of federal immigration officers.

Why Did Sanctuary Cities File a Lawsuit?

After President Trump issued the executive orders, many cities and counties, mostly from California but also from other parts of the country, filed a lawsuit. They challenged the orders, saying they were unfair and illegal.

The main plaintiffs—meaning the people and cities who started the lawsuit—include:

• San Francisco and Santa Clara County, California (first ones to sue)
• San José, California
• Emeryville, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, and Monterey County, all in California
• Seattle and King County, Washington
• Portland, Oregon
• Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota
• New Haven, Connecticut
• Santa Fe, New Mexico

These places argued they would lose important federal funds needed for everything from police and schools to health care and road repairs. Local leaders warned that residents, including those who are not immigrants, would suffer if this money disappeared.

What Constitutional Problems Did Judge William Orrick Find?

Judge William Orrick pointed out several problems with the executive orders, saying they went against different parts of the U.S. Constitution. Here are the main issues:

1. Separation of Powers: The Constitution gives certain jobs to Congress, the President, and the courts. Judge Orrick said President Trump overstepped his power by trying to change how Congress already chose to spend money. Only Congress can decide how to spend federal funds.

2. Spending Clause Violation: Congress is the branch that controls spending. Executive orders that try to change how money is handed out—especially for political reasons—go against the Spending Clause, which is the rule about government spending in the Constitution.

3. Fifth Amendment Explained: The Fifth Amendment says no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal steps (“due process”). Judge Orrick found that the Trump orders were too vague about what would count as a sanctuary policy and when money could be taken away. This makes it hard for states and cities to understand what is expected, which is unfair under the law.

4. Tenth Amendment: The Tenth Amendment says states and cities can run their own local laws and cannot be forced to follow federal demands concerning local matters. Judge Orrick said forcing local officials to act as federal immigration officers was “coercive,” meaning it used threats instead of letting local governments decide for themselves.

So, by trying to force states and cities to work with ICE or lose funding, Judge Orrick said President Trump was acting beyond his power as president.

How Has This Happened Before?

This is not the first time Judge William Orrick has decided a case like this. Back in 2017, during President Trump’s first term, Judge Orrick gave a similar ruling stopping the president from restricting federal funds for sanctuary cities. At that time, cities and counties were also afraid they’d lose money needed for schools, roads, or public safety.

Judge Orrick’s 2025 ruling stated that these fears were even stronger now, especially after more attempts to use executive orders in this way.

What Was the Immediate Impact?

Judge Orrick’s order took effect right away. He told the Trump administration it had to inform all federal departments and agencies about the ruling by April 28. Federal officials had to stop any planned moves to hold back money from sanctuary cities.

This sudden stop was important because federal funds matter a lot to every community, helping to pay for police, emergency workers, children’s programs, health care, and more.

Cities and counties that depend on these funds got quick relief. They did not have to guess whether money would disappear or face tough choices about local immigration policies.

What Other Legal Challenges Did President Trump Face That Day?

The courtroom loss over sanctuary cities was just one of three big setbacks President Trump’s administration suffered on April 24, 2025. All three happened within about 90 minutes:

1. A judge blocked the administration from withholding funding from schools that have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The judge wrote this was “textbook viewpoint discrimination”—meaning it unfairly punished schools for holding certain beliefs rather than others.

2. Another judge stopped parts of President Trump’s order on voting, including a rule that voter registration forms must ask for proof of citizenship. This was seen as going beyond what the law allows.

Together, these cases show how courts often look at whether a president is making rules only Congress is supposed to make—especially when money or local authority are involved.

What Does This Ruling Mean for the Future?

This decision may affect not just sanctuary cities, but the balance of power among local, state, and federal governments nationwide.

• Sanctuary Cities: They can keep doing what they see as best for their communities without fearing sudden loss of vital funding. Immigrants in those places may feel safer reporting crimes or working with local police.

• Federal Government: President Trump’s team cannot easily force local governments to follow federal immigration wishes by threatening to block federal funds. If they want cities and counties to do something, they’ll need to work with Congress to change the law.

• Immigrants: Many families living in sanctuary cities will see this as a victory. It may help them feel more at ease connecting with local services and reporting problems.

• Other Cities and States: Even places that are not sanctuary cities might feel more confident making their own decisions given this legal support. The ruling strengthens local decision-making and limits federal power to threaten cities into certain actions.

What Are Some Differing Views?

Not everyone agrees with Judge Orrick’s decision. Supporters of President Trump’s orders say the federal government has the right to set rules about who gets federal funds, especially when it comes to national issues like immigration. They argue that if cities want federal support, they should help enforce federal law.

On the other hand, leaders of sanctuary cities say the federal government should not use money as a weapon to try to force them into policy choices they believe are best for their residents. They believe the Constitution protects their right to decide local matters.

According to analysis from VisaVerge.com, this kind of tension raises questions about the future of states’ rights and the roles of cities in shaping national immigration policy.

Historical and Legal Context

The fight about sanctuary cities has lasted years. Supporters sometimes point to the Tenth Amendment, which says any power not given to the federal government belongs to the states. Over time, courts have often blocked attempts to force states and cities into helping with federal immigration policy by cutting their funds.

People who want tougher immigration enforcement believe sanctuary policies make it harder to control illegal immigration. Those in favor of sanctuary rules believe these policies make communities safer and protect the rights of all residents.

The argument over federal funds is just part of a bigger story about local control, security, and the role of government in American life.

Where to Learn More

For anyone wishing to read the actual court ruling or track how federal funds for local governments work, the official U.S. Department of Justice website offers updates on federal law, ongoing lawsuits, and legal briefs.

Key Points and Looking Forward

• Judge William Orrick’s ruling stops President Trump from blocking or putting extra conditions on federal funds for sanctuary cities and counties.
• The judge said the executive orders violated many parts of the Constitution, including rules about separation of powers, due process, and the rights of states and cities.
• Many cities and counties, especially in California but also across the country, benefit from this decision.
• This ruling gives sanctuary cities confidence to stick to their policies, helps immigrants feel more protected, and underscores the importance of local decision-making in American life.

It’s still possible that President Trump’s administration will appeal this decision or that Congress may try to pass new laws. But for now, cities and counties can keep their funding and continue making decisions about their own communities. This story shows how courts are a key check on presidential power—especially in areas where the Constitution gives much of that power to Congress and local leaders.

If you or someone you know lives in a sanctuary city, this ruling may offer some comfort during uncertain times. For those interested in immigration law, it’s a clear example of the constant push and pull between local, state, and federal governments—one that is likely to shape American immigration policy for years to come.

Learn Today

Sanctuary City → A city or county that limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies, like ICE, to protect undocumented immigrants.
Preliminary Injunction → A court order that temporarily halts actions or policies until a full legal hearing can resolve the case.
Spending Clause → A constitutional rule giving Congress authority over allocating and setting conditions for federal government spending.
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) → A federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws, detaining, and deporting certain non-citizens in the U.S.
Tenth Amendment → A constitutional amendment reserving powers not granted to the federal government for states and localities, supporting local authority.

This Article in a Nutshell

A major federal court ruling on April 24, 2025, blocks President Trump from withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities. Judge William Orrick’s decision upholds local autonomy, declaring certain executive orders unconstitutional. The outcome safeguards crucial funding for cities, shaping ongoing debates about immigration, local control, and the limits of presidential power in America.
— By VisaVerge.com

Read more:

• Sonoma County Churches Assert Sanctuary Status During Trump Era
• Higher Justice Coalition calls for sanctuary campuses free of ICE
• Federal Funds for Citizenship Help Cut in Nevada Over ‘Sanctuary Cities’
• Michelle Wu Defends Sanctuary City Laws in Bold Pro-Immigrant Speech
• Sanctuary City Mayors Stand by Immigration Policies Before House Panel