Judge issues preliminary injunction blocking sanctuary executive order

Santa Clara County supervisor: 'The court's decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation.'

A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday blocked an executive order by President Donald Trump that threatened to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities and counties.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction in a pair of lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and Santa Clara County.

In his decision, Orrick wrote that the "plain language" of the order issued by Trump on Jan. 25 threatens all federal funding for cities, counties and states deemed by the Trump administration to be sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in deporting undocumented immigrants.

The judge said it is unconstitutional for the executive branch to place new conditions on federal funds because that would intrude on Congress's spending power.

"The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the president, so the order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds," Orrick wrote.

"Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves," the judge said in the ruling.

Orrick rejected an argument made at a hearing earlier this month by a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer who contended the order should be interpreted narrowly to apply only to a limited set of federal criminal justice grants.

The judge said that argument was not plausible because the wording of Trump's order addressed all federal funding and because Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions had made broad statements threatening to withhold, terminate or claw back federal funding.

Orrick said his ruling did not prevent the government from enforcing any existing conditions imposed on federal grants or from developing regulations to define a sanctuary jurisdiction.

The San Francisco and Santa Clara County lawsuits were among several filed around the nation to challenge the executive order, but were the first to receive a judicial ruling. Another of the pending lawsuits was filed in federal court in San Francisco by the city of Richmond.

"The politics of fear has just suffered a major setback, thanks to Judge Orrick and our judicial branch, along with the support of cities and counties across the country," Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors President Dave Cortese said in a press release. "Millions of people across the country can continue to receive essential medical care, go to school and remain active members of their communities without fear that their local governments are being forced to work against them, rather than for them."

"The court's decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation," Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez said in a press release Tuesday afternoon. "Seniors in need of food, foster youth in need of shelter and children who need medical care. We'll continue being a welcoming, safe and diverse community," Chavez said.


Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


8 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 26, 2017 at 4:50 pm

The Constitutional system works!

Be grateful for that iron wingnut dogma. If Trump, Sessions, et al. could apply themselves somewhat smartly, democracy could be in very deep trouble.

2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 26, 2017 at 7:46 pm

The funny thing about this ruling is that the lawyers for the Justice Dept are in pretty good agreement with the lawyers for SF/SC about what is legal. It's just that the judge said there is no feasible way to read the order that narrowly, given its broad claims and given the statements that Trump and Sessions have made about the order. But the law itself is pretty clear and is not really being debated, which is reassuring.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Peek inside the fine-dining Selby's, opening in Redwood City this summer
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,627 views

Juggling Renewables
By Sherry Listgarten | 42 comments | 2,079 views

Premarital and Couples: Living as Roommates?
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,469 views

Homestead Faire at Hidden Villa 4/27
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 890 views

A trial run
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 557 views


Vote now!

It's time once again to cast your vote for the best places to eat, drink, shop and spend time in Palo Alto. Voting is open now through May 27. Watch for the results of our 2019 Best Of contest on Friday, July 19.