Original Date Announced

President Trump issued EO 14218, "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders," requiring the heads of each executive department or agency to take certain steps to "prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration" and "ensure, to the maximum extent permitted by law, that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens." Such department or agency heads must:

• identify federally funded programs administrated by the agency that currently permit undocumented immigrants to obtain "any cash or non-cash public benefit" and align such programs, consistent with legal requirements, to this EO and provisions of federal law (including PRWORA);
• ensure, consistent with legal requirements, that federal payments to states do not "by design or effect, facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration, or abet so-called 'sanctuary' policies";
• enhance eligibility verification systems "to the maximum extent possible prevent benefits from going to ineligible noncitizens; and
• refer "any improper receipt or use of Federal benefits" to DOJ and DHS for "appropriate action."

In the next 30 days, the Order also requires the OMB Director and the DOGE Administrator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, to (1) identify all other sources of federal funding for undocumented immigrants; and (2) recommend additional actions to align federal spending with the purpose of the EO.

Trump 2.0 [ID #1571]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.02.27 First Amended Complaint - San Francisco v. Trump

The City and County of San Francisco, along with multiple other local governments, filed an amended complaint to challenge EO 14159, EO 14218, and the February 5, 2025 DOJ Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directive. The complaint alleges that the threats to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions 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

2025.04.24 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

2025.08.22 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**