The Trump Administration’s actions attempt to illegally defund sanctuary jurisdictions and commandeer local law enforcement to do the federal government’s job
SAN FRANCISCO (February 7, 2025) — San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu announced that San Francisco, and a coalition of local jurisdictions from across the country, are filing a lawsuit later today against the Trump Administration over Executive Orders and Administration actions illegally harming cities and states that have sanctuary policies. Sanctuary laws and policies prioritize city and state resources for traditional law enforcement, crime fighting efforts, and other local and state priorities, instead of being forced to take on the federal government’s immigration enforcement responsibilities. Sanctuary laws improve public safety and have been repeatedly upheld by federal courts.
Since taking office on January 20, Donald Trump and his administration have targeted sanctuary localities and states with several Executive Orders and agency actions meant to compel local jurisdictions into carrying out the President’s policy priorities and to commandeer local law enforcement officers to take on the role of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The federal actions make clear that jurisdictions will be defunded if they do not give up their legal authority and comply.
Executive Order 14159 entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” orders federal agencies to illegally cut off federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Two memos from the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) sent on January 21 and February 5 have instructed USDOJ personnel to investigate and civilly and criminally prosecute state and local officials in sanctuary jurisdictions who do not actively assist in immigration enforcement. Yesterday, USDOJ brought a lawsuit against the City of Chicago and State of Illinois challenging their sanctuary laws, making the prosecution of state and local officials for following their local laws a reality.
“The Trump Administration’s actions have nothing to do with public safety because we know that sanctuary laws improve public safety,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. “This is the federal government illegally asserting a right it does not have, telling cities how to use their resources, and commandeering local law enforcement. This is the federal government coercing local officials to bend to their will or face defunding or prosecution. That is illegal and authoritarian. As local officials, we have a right to do our jobs without threats and interference from the federal government.”
Background
San Francisco’s sanctuary laws have been in place since 1989, and seek to improve public safety. Studies have consistently shown immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, and sanctuary jurisdictions either see no increase in crime or have lower crime rates.
As a result of sanctuary laws, crime victims and witnesses are willing to come forward and report crimes to police. Trust between law enforcement and communities gets criminals off the streets and improves public safety. Eroding trust and targeting hardworking families with threats of deportation does the opposite. It makes individuals fearful to report crimes, go to school, or obtain needed healthcare.
Sanctuary laws do not protect criminals. They prioritize using local law enforcement resources to fight crime, not do the job of the federal government. Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility, not the responsibility of state or local governments. Sanctuary laws do not interfere with or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement in any way.
The federal government knows the identity and has the fingerprints of every inmate in San Francisco’s jails. If the federal government has legal reason to arrest someone, they can do so by obtaining a criminal warrant or a court order.
During the first Trump Administration, San Francisco sued the federal government after the Administration attempted to withhold federal funds from the City based on its sanctuary policies. In that matter, San Francisco v. Trump, and subsequent cases, federal district courts and the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the conditions the Trump Administration attempted to place on federal funding were unconstitutional and that San Francisco’s sanctuary policies comply with federal law, specifically Section 8 U.S.C. § 1373.
The lawsuit alleges Executive Order 14159 and the related USDOJ memo violate the Tenth Amendment, Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. The lawsuit asks the Court to declare these federal actions unlawful and enjoin the federal government from enforcing the challenged portions.
Led by the City and County of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, the lawsuit to be filed today is also brought by the City of New Haven, Connecticut; King County, Washington; and the City of Portland, Oregon, which is represented in this case by Public Rights Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that works with local governments to protect civil rights. The matter will be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.
###