Original Date Announced

Trump signed Executive Order 14287 directing the Attorney General (AG), in consultation with DHS, to publish a list of sanctuary States and local jurisdictions and to notify them of their "defiance of Federal immigration law enforcement and any potential violations of Federal criminal law." The administration will then consider which funds to cut to those jurisdictions and potentially bring legal challenges against them.

The EO further requires the development of additional eligibility verification for individuals who receive federal benefits from private entities in sanctuary jurisdictions and directs the AG to "identify and take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens. . . ."

Trump 2.0 [ID #1716]

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 a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of EOs 14159 and 14218 in litigation detailed in related entries applies to EO 14287. The City and County of San Francisco had filed suit against the Trump administration in February 2025 to challenge EO 14159, EO 14218, and the DOJ's February 5, 2025 Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directive. Judge Orrick issued a preliminary injunction on April 24, 2025, enjoining the government from 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; or (3) the Preamble and Section I of the DOJ Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directive on the basis of the City’s sanctuary policies.

In an order clarifying the April 24, 2025 preliminary injunction, 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. 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

2025.08.07 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**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.11.25 Reported: DOJ Demands Data Troves From US Attorneys on Trump Mandates - Bloomberg Law

Bloomberg Law reports DOJ issued a directive requiring all 93 U.S. Attorneys' Offices to submit detailed progress reports on their enforcement of key administration mandates, including legal actions executed against state and local "sanctuary jurisdictions." Oversight from DOJ headquarters is to ensure that federal prosecutors are aligning their prosecutorial resources with the administration’s specific immigration and law-enforcement priorities.