A federal judge has blocked the White House from defunding 34 municipalities over their sanctuary policies, delivering a major legal setback to President Trump’s push to penalize cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. In a July 25, 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins dismissed the administration’s lawsuit targeting Illinois sanctuary laws, writing that allowing Washington to force local participation “would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.” The decision protects local funding while the broader national fight over sanctuary policies continues.
Immediate Effect of the Ruling
The ruling immediately shields Illinois jurisdictions from federal funding cuts tied to non-cooperation with immigration enforcement. It also adds fresh legal weight to years of court decisions warning against using federal purse strings to control state and local policy.
While the case arose in Illinois, the approach applies nationwide: the Constitution sets limits on how the federal government can pressure states and cities, particularly when funding conditions resemble coercion rather than genuine choice.
The decision ensures local funding for housing, disaster relief, and community programs remains intact for now while litigation continues.
Court Order: Key Points
Judge Jenkins’s order accomplishes three main things:
1. Blocks attempts to defund Illinois jurisdictions that maintain sanctuary policies.
2. Affirms that the federal government cannot compel states and cities to carry out federal immigration functions.
3. Signals that penalizing local policy choices through funding conditions carries steep constitutional risks tied to the Tenth Amendment.
For local governments, the practical impacts include:
– Breathing room to maintain policies limiting cooperation with ICE—such as declining to hold people on civil immigration detainers without a judge’s warrant.
– Preservation of public funds supporting core programs.
– A legal precedent other jurisdictions can cite when resisting similar federal pressure.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson praised the ruling as affirming the legality of the city’s Welcoming City Ordinance.
Federal Response and Ongoing Pressure
The White House has not retreated. Officials say they will continue to press other jurisdictions, including New York City, and explore new tactics to force compliance.
- The Department of Justice (DOJ) has sent letters to mayors and governors warning of legal action and raising the risk of federal funding loss.
- On August 19, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi warned sanctuary jurisdictions, “You better comply or you’re next,” threatening lawsuits, funding cuts, and potential federal intervention. That date became an informal compliance deadline as the DOJ signaled possible escalation.
DHS and DOJ tactics include:
– Publishing lists of non-compliant jurisdictions.
– Coordinating pressure by attaching conditions to grants and initiating litigation.
Local Reactions
Cities and states are split in response:
– Louisville, Kentucky, adjusted policy and was removed from the DOJ’s sanctuary list.
– Boston and Washington, D.C., are holding firm. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said, “Boston will not back down from who we are and what we stand for,” emphasizing trust between police and immigrant communities as a safety measure.
– DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called sanctuary policies dangerous and accused them of shielding people who should be in federal custody.
Community groups warn that funding threats risk core safety nets—food support, emergency housing, and other services—that serve both citizens and noncitizens.
Legal Context and Scholarly Views
Legal scholars note limits on coercive federal funding tactics:
– The Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius restricts how far the federal government can threaten existing funding to secure policy changes.
– Gerard Filitti (Lawfare Project) argues aggressive executive actions targeting state/local budgets can conflict with the Constitution’s spending clause.
– Kathleen Bush-Joseph (Migration Policy Institute) notes that executive orders cannot override state laws; sweeping changes would require congressional action and narrowly tailored funding conditions.
Legislative Efforts
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have revived efforts to deny federal support to sanctuary jurisdictions:
– H.R. 32: No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act would deny funds to places restricting information sharing or refusing DHS detainers, with exceptions for crime victims and witnesses.
– If passed, the bill would apply 60 days after enactment or at the start of the next fiscal year.
The bill’s text and status are posted on Congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/32. Courts will likely scrutinize any enacted measure for coerciveness and relevance to the funded program.
The Administration’s Enforcement Playbook
The administration’s pattern for pushing compliance generally follows these steps:
1. Identification: DOJ and DHS publish lists of jurisdictions deemed non-compliant.
2. Notification: Letters demand policy changes and warn of consequences.
3. Compliance window: Jurisdictions are typically given about 30 days to change policy.
4. Enforcement: DOJ pursues lawsuits, funding cuts, or—extremely—federalizing local law enforcement.
5. Litigation: States and cities sue, citing the Tenth Amendment and spending-clause limits.
Recent court decisions, including the Illinois ruling, show strong judicial resistance when federal directives are framed as funding conditions but functionally coerce policy.
Public Safety and Community Impacts
Arguments on both sides emphasize public safety:
– Local leaders and police chiefs argue sanctuary policies foster trust, encouraging immigrant cooperation and aiding crime-solving.
– Opponents say sanctuary policies risk releases that could endanger public safety.
For immigrant families, consequences are tangible:
– Sanctuary policies can reduce fear of reporting crimes or seeking services.
– Increased federal enforcement could bring more detentions, deportations, and community disruption.
– Potential funding cuts could shrink critical services that support both immigrants and citizens.
What to Expect Next
- Expect more lawsuits: at least 20 state attorneys general and Washington, D.C., are already challenging enforcement moves tied to sanctuary policies.
- DOJ signals continued pressure, citing public safety and uniform federal law enforcement.
- Some cities (e.g., Boston, New York) appear prepared to resist; others (e.g., Louisville) may change policy to preserve funds.
Judge Jenkins’s ruling establishes a crucial principle: while ICE enforcement of federal law continues, the White House cannot compel local governments to carry out federal immigration work by threatening broad streams of money.
The central legal divide: enforcement of federal immigration law remains, but the federal government cannot use funding threats to order states and cities to perform federal duties.
The courts will keep determining where that line falls—one ruling at a time—with budgets and lives on the line.
This Article in a Nutshell
Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins blocked the administration’s effort to defund 34 sanctuary jurisdictions on July 25, 2025, finding funding coercion violates the Tenth Amendment. The ruling shields Illinois locales and preserves key federal programs while DOJ and DHS continue legal and administrative pressure. Expect appeals, more litigation, and congressional debates like H.R. 32.
