Original Date Announced

Section I of AG Bondi's "Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives" memorandum directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to require that all state and local jurisdictions be "compliant with" 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) to be eligible for certain Department grants. 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) provides that government entities "may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration officers] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."

Within 30 days, the Associate Attorney General will create a report listing grants to which this new requirement applies. Additionally, "the Department may seek to tailor future grants to promote a lawful system of immigration, and to reduce efforts by state or local jurisdictions to undermine a lawful system of immigration." Part I also states that DOJ officials will "take any appropriate enforcement action where state or local practices violate federal laws, regulations, or grant conditions."

Trump 2.0 [ID #1529]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.02.07 Complaint - San Francisco v. Trump

The City and County of San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Portland, King County, and New Haven sued President Trump, alleging that the threats to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions in Section 17 of EO 14159 and the DOJ memo described in this policy entry are unconstitutional and violate federal law. City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.02.24 City of Chelsea v. Trump, No. 25-10442 (D. Mass.) - Complaint

Two Massachusetts cities—Chelsea and Somerville—sued the Trump administration on the grounds that the government's threats to defund so-called sanctuary jurisdictions in Section 17 of EO 14159 and the DOJ memo described in this policy entry are unconstitutional. City of Chelsea v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10442 (D. Mass.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.02.28 Reported: More Sanctuary Jurisdictions Join Suit Against Trump Admin - Law360

Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Santa Fe, and Oakland joined the lawsuit led by the City and County of San Francisco challenging the Trump administration's threats to defund so-called sanctuary cities. City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.04.24 Preliminary Injunction - San Francisco v. Trump

District Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining the federal government from "taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds from the Cities and Counties based on (1) the first sentence of Section 17 of Executive Order 14159; (2) Section 2(a)(ii) of Executive Order 14218; or (3) the Preamble and Section I of the [DOJ Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directives]" on the basis of plaintiffs' policies that limit "(i) the honoring of civil immigration detainer requests; (ii) cooperation with administrative warrants for purposes of immigration enforcement; (iii) sharing of information with federal immigration authorities other than immigration or citizenship status; (iv) the use of local law enforcement to arrest or detain individuals solely for civil immigration violations; or (v) the use of local resources to assist with civil immigration enforcement activities." City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal. 2025).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.05.09 Order Clarifying Preliminary Injunction - San Francisco v. Trump

District Judge William Orrick issued an order clarifying how the April 24, 2025 preliminary injunction related to EO 14287. The court held that "neither Executive Order 14,287 nor any other Government Action that postdates the Preliminary Injunction can be used as an end run around the Preliminary Injunction Order." It clarifies that the preliminary injunction applies to any EO or agency directive that "purports to attempt to cut off federal funding from States or localities that meet the Government’s definition of 'sanctuary' jurisdiction in the wholesale, overly broad and unconstitutional manner threatened by Section 17 of EO 14,159 and Section 2(a)(ii) of EO 14,218." City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.)

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.07 Second Amended Complaint - City and County of San Francisco v. Trump

The City and County of San Francisco, along with multiple other local governments, filed a second amended complaint. The complaint alleges that through EO 14159, EO 14218, EO 14287, and the DOJ Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directive, "Defendants are unilaterally imposing new conditions on federal funding without authorization from Congress" and coercing states into cooperating with federal immigration law in violation of the Tenth Amendment, separation of powers principles, and the Spending Clause. The plaintiffs also allege that EO 14287 is void for vagueness, violates the plaintiffs' procedural due process rights, and is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to constitutional right, and in excess of statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.18 Complaint - New Jersey v. DOJ

A coalition of 21 state attorneys general sued the Trump administration in Rhode Island federal court alleging unlawful tying of $1 billion in Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funds to immigration enforcement. The lawsuit challenges conditions tied to VOCA grant-eligibility that require states to honor civil immigration-detainers, grant ICE access to detention facilities, and provide advance notice to ICE of noncitizens' release. The states argue that the conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and federalism principles. The states seek declaratory and injunctive relief. State of New Jersey v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00404 (D.R.I.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.22 Order Granting Second Preliminary Injunction - San Francisco v. Trump

District Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the federal government from “directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds” based on (1) the first sentence of Section 17 of EO 14159; (2) Section 2(a)(ii) of EO 14218; (3) the DOJ Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directive; or (4) “any other Executive Order or Government action that poses the same coercive threat to eliminate or suspend federal funding based on the Government’s assertion that a jurisdiction is a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction[.]’”

The order finds that the challenged executive orders and related agency directives violate the Spending Clause, separation of powers principles, Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and Administrative Procedure Act. The order also clarifies that the preliminary injunction reaches conditions imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on Continuum of Care grants.

City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**