Key Takeaways
• Judge Orrick blocked Trump’s 2025 executive order cutting federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions.
• Congress alone, not the president, controls how federal funds are distributed to states and cities.
• Sanctuary cities like Portland risked losing up to $344 million in grants, affecting public safety and housing.
Over the years, the relationship between federal immigration laws and local government policies has led to strong disagreements, especially around the approach known as “sanctuary” policies. Under President Trump, these disagreements grew sharper as his administration made several attempts to punish states and cities—referred to as sanctuary jurisdictions—that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. However, courts have set clear legal limits on the ability of the Trump administration to take action against these jurisdictions, especially when it comes to federal funds. Understanding these limits is important for local officials, immigrants living in affected areas, and anyone following the ongoing immigration debate.
Overview of the Trump Administration’s Actions
President Trump has often said that cities and states that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities should lose access to federal funds. On April 28, 2025, he signed an executive order targeting sanctuary jurisdictions. This order instructed the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to compile a list of all sanctuary jurisdictions, notify them about their non-compliant status, identify federal funds that could be stopped or withheld, and work on legal strategies to punish those jurisdictions. It also called for checking whether people in these places are eligible for public benefits funded by the federal government.
This order would directly impact many large cities and states, such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and states like California, Oregon, Washington, and Illinois. As reported by VisaVerge.com, cities like Portland could potentially lose hundreds of millions in federal grant money for basic services like public safety and affordable housing if the order were enforced.
Historical Context and Past Attempts
This is not the first time that the Trump administration has tried to force sanctuary jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration authorities by threatening to take away funding. During President Trump’s first term, similar executive orders were signed, and these moves were quickly met with lawsuits from cities and states. A key legal decision from that time came from U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who ruled against the administration and put a stop to the policy. His ruling was later supported by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which confirmed that the president did not have the power to change the way federal funds are distributed without the approval of Congress.
In the most recent attempt, Judge Orrick pointed out that the current executive order creates an even greater risk for sanctuary jurisdictions, possibly leading to even stronger resistance from the courts.
Key Legal Terms and Concepts
Several legal principles shape what the Trump administration can and cannot do when dealing with sanctuary jurisdictions and federal funds. The main ones are the separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment.
- Separation of Powers:
This principle means that Congress, not the President, has the authority to decide how federal money is spent. If the president wants to add new rules or take away money from certain places, he must get Congress to approve these changes first. The executive branch cannot decide on its own to create new funding rules that Congress never approved. -
Tenth Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment protects the authority of states and local governments. It says that any powers not given to the federal government belong to the states or the people. When the Trump administration tries to force local officials to carry out federal immigration duties, it crosses the line set by the Tenth Amendment. Federal authorities can ask for help, but they cannot demand it or punish local governments for saying “no.” -
Fifth Amendment:
Judge Orrick also mentioned possible Fifth Amendment problems. The Fifth Amendment requires that the government act fairly and not take away property or rights without following proper legal steps. Suddenly cutting off federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions without giving them a fair hearing could violate this rule.
Court Rulings and Legal Enforcement
On April 24, 2025, just before the executive order was signed, Judge Orrick issued a preliminary injunction. This is a court order that temporarily prevents the government from going forward with a policy while a lawsuit is being decided. The injunction specifically bars the Trump administration from stopping, holding back, or tying federal funds to cooperation with immigration authorities, either directly or indirectly. In his order, Judge Orrick said that the government’s plan likely breaks several parts of the Constitution.
The main reasons given were that the executive order tries to change how funds are spent without Congress, forces local governments to carry out federal duties, and may treat local governments unfairly. The judge told the administration to notify all federal departments and agencies about this injunction to make sure that none of them go ahead with the plan.
Scope and Mechanisms of the Executive Order
The executive order aimed to:
- Produce an official list of sanctuary jurisdictions within 30 days.
- Inform each jurisdiction about its “non-compliance” status.
- Find out which federal funds could be put on hold or cancelled.
- Look for legal ways to punish these jurisdictions.
- Come up with systems to check if people getting public benefits in sanctuary areas have a legal right to receive them.
Sources show that the administration tried to make the policy look more regular and fair than past attempts, likely to stand up better in court. For example, agencies were told to explain why any funding changes were justified and to use clearer standards. Despite this, Judge Orrick found these attempts not enough to make the order legal, describing them as “likely arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the Constitution.”
Impact on States, Cities, and Residents
If this executive order had gone into effect, it would have affected many large cities and states, as well as immigrants and other residents. For example, Portland receives about $344 million in active federal grants. These grants fund public safety, affordable housing, and many other key programs. Losing these funds would likely weaken important services for people living in these cities, from emergency responders to families who rely on public housing.
The debate also affects immigrants living in sanctuary jurisdictions. Many of these cities and states have rules that limit how much local police or government staff share information with federal immigration authorities. Officials say these rules help build trust between police and immigrant groups. If the Trump administration forced cities to help enforce federal rules or else lose money, it could change how local police interact with immigrant communities and make many families feel less safe or welcome.
Enforcement and Ongoing Legal Challenges
After Judge Orrick’s injunction, the executive order cannot be put into action until the court case is finished. This means that, for now, sanctuary jurisdictions do not have to worry about losing federal funds because of the April 28, 2025 order. The judge’s decision ordered the administration to notify every federal department and agency so they’d know the ruling takes effect right away.
While the current ruling blocks the policy for now, the administration might still argue its case as the lawsuit moves forward. Some experts think they might try to fix past mistakes by making future orders more specific and clearer. However, the main legal rule remains: the federal government can set immigration policy, but it cannot force state or local governments to use their own money or people to enforce those federal rules.
Congress, the President, and the Limits of Executive Power
A debate continues about how much power the president should have to control federal funds. The Constitution is clear that Congress, not the president, controls the “purse strings”—meaning the ability to spend or withhold federal money. If the Trump administration wants to punish sanctuary jurisdictions by taking away funding, they must get approval from Congress. Simply signing an executive order is not enough.
The courts have criticized attempts to punish jurisdictions without clear congressional approval as trying to “commandeer” state and local governments. The Tenth Amendment strongly opposes this idea, and recent rulings have reaffirmed this limit.
Policy Changes and Future Possibilities
There is still a lot of debate over sanctuary jurisdictions and how the federal government should respond. Some people argue that sanctuary policies make the country less safe by keeping dangerous criminals from being handed over to immigration authorities. Others argue that forcing local police to work as immigration agents harms public safety because it makes immigrants less likely to report crimes or help police.
Even though the Trump administration keeps trying to find ways to punish sanctuary jurisdictions, the courts have made it clear that the Constitution sets boundaries that must be followed. Unless Congress changes federal law or the Constitution itself, it is unlikely that future executive orders will be able to get around these limits.
Real-World Examples and Consequences
Imagine a city that receives a large amount of federal grant money for police and fire departments. If those funds were suddenly taken away, the city would either have to raise taxes, cut services, or both. This could hit the poorest people the hardest. In Portland, for example, the loss of $344 million would impact public safety and affordable housing programs that many people depend on.
For immigrants, the main concern is that tying federal funds to local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities might make witnesses and victims of crime too scared to contact police, making communities less safe for everyone. Local officials often say that their sanctuary policies are not about ignoring federal law, but about using their own resources in a way that best protects residents.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
Right now, because of the court rulings, sanctuary jurisdictions are not losing federal funds under the latest Trump executive order. But if future court decisions or changes in law allow withholding funds, the penalties could be severe. Cities and states might lose money for emergency services, schools, healthcare, housing, and more. This could affect not just immigrants, but all people living in those areas.
Common Misconceptions
Some people believe that sanctuary jurisdictions break the law just by refusing to enforce federal immigration rules. But the court decisions show that local governments have the right to decide how much they want to cooperate with federal authorities, as long as they are not directly stopping federal officers from doing their own jobs. Others think the president can take away any federal money with just an executive order, but the Constitution gives Congress that power.
Recent or Pending Legislative Changes
As of now, there are no new federal laws that change the situation. Any real change would need Congress to pass a law specifically allowing the president to withhold money from sanctuary jurisdictions. The current situation is guided by existing constitutional rules and ongoing court cases.
Helpful Resources
For citizens, local officials, and immigrants seeking more information on current policies or their legal rights, the U.S. Department of Justice’s legal opinions provide official guidance on how federal and state powers interact. For executive orders or government actions, the White House fact sheets offer more details.
Summary
The Trump administration’s latest efforts to punish sanctuary jurisdictions by threatening to cut off federal funds face strong legal barriers. Courts have said several times that the president cannot take away funding from states or cities on his own and that only Congress can control federal spending. The Constitution protects the right of local governments not to carry out federal duties unless Congress approves, and forcing them to do so violates the Tenth Amendment. Until new laws are passed, or the courts issue new rulings, sanctuary jurisdictions remain protected from losing federal money solely due to their policies on immigration cooperation. Anyone concerned about these issues should keep up to date using reliable government resources and by following credible reporting from platforms like VisaVerge.com.
Learn Today
Sanctuary Jurisdictions → Cities or states limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities to protect undocumented immigrants from automatic detention or deportation.
Executive Order → A directive issued by the President to manage operations of the federal government, sometimes facing legal limits on its reach.
Preliminary Injunction → A temporary court order preventing government action while a lawsuit is decided, maintaining the status quo.
Separation of Powers → A constitutional principle dividing government authority among Congress, the President, and courts, ensuring no branch exceeds its power.
Tenth Amendment → Part of the U.S. Constitution reserving powers not granted to the federal government for the states or the people.
This Article in a Nutshell
President Trump’s 2025 executive order attempted to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, but courts quickly blocked enforcement, citing constitutional violations. Only Congress can control federal spending. The legal battle highlights the ongoing struggle over federal and local authority in immigration and the protection of key public services.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• DOJ challenges New York Sanctuary Law over immigration enforcement
• Sanctuary Cities face new restrictions under Trump executive order
• California sanctuary policies face renewed scrutiny from Trump administration
• Trump signs executive order targeting sanctuary cities
• Bay Area responds as judge blocks Trump move against sanctuary cities
