A federal judge has temporarily blocked the enforcement of part of an executive order issued by President Trump, which mandates that federal agencies withhold funds from cities and counties that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Judge William H. Orrick of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California issued a brief order, stating that the case was reminiscent of a previous intervention he made during Trump's first term. He prohibited the government from taking any actions to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds based on the executive order or a related memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The directive prompted a legal challenge from 16 city and county governments, which argued that it violated the Constitution’s spending clause, giving Congress the authority to manage federal funding and influence state behavior.
Following a similar ruling by Judge Orrick in 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, establishing a precedent for the current case.
The Trump administration's approach to withholding federal funds has faced legal scrutiny, as abrupt changes to federal programs have led to lawsuits claiming violations of due process and infringements on Congress's authority.
Judge Orrick expressed concerns that the government's actions could disrupt local governance and harm residents. He noted that the threat of funding withdrawal creates irreparable injuries, including budgetary uncertainty and a loss of trust between local governments and their communities.
The ruling specifically applies to the 16 cities and counties involved in the lawsuit, which primarily include jurisdictions in California, along with Minneapolis, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and New Haven, Connecticut.
Judge Orrick acknowledged that the Trump administration's immigration policies have become bolder and more explicit in the current term. He observed that the harms faced by the cities and counties have intensified, strengthening their case against the government.
He concluded that the cities and counties' fear of enforcement has increased since 2017, reinforcing the need for the injunction, which will remain in effect throughout the duration of the lawsuit.