Obama-appointed judge halts Trump funding cuts to sanctuary jurisdictions

Leftist judicial activism has once again reached out to slap down President Donald Trump’s efforts to rein in sanctuary jurisdictions.

The Daily Caller reported that late on a Friday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, an Obama appointee, extended a preliminary injunction that stops the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from cities and counties refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

This ruling, stemming from a lawsuit first launched by San Francisco officials, now ropes in a slew of other sanctuary jurisdictions as plaintiffs, all fighting to keep their federal funding while thumbing their noses at immigration enforcement.

Let’s rewind to 2017, when President Trump signed Executive Order 13,768, aptly titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” aiming to block federal funds from these so-called sanctuary havens.

The policy targeted jurisdictions with policies that restrict local officials from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), such as refusing to honor detainer requests or share information about unauthorized migrants. It was a bold move to prioritize public safety over progressive posturing.

Judge Orrick’s Consistent Roadblock to Trump

Enter Judge Orrick, who in 2017 ruled that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional after San Francisco challenged it, claiming irreparable harm without an injunction.

Fast forward to April of this year, and Orrick again slapped down similar executive actions, calling them likely unconstitutional and a threat to liberal enclaves. Apparently, protecting community welfare means shielding policies that undermine federal law.

“Here we are again,” wrote Judge Orrick in his April order, referencing past clashes over Trump’s attempts to defund sanctuary cities during his first term. How quaint—a judicial déjà vu that conveniently ignores the safety concerns of everyday Americans. If only our borders got this much repeat protection.

Upon returning to office, President Trump didn’t waste time, signing another executive order directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security to deny certain federal funds to these jurisdictions.

The DOJ even maintains a list of cities, counties, and states it considers havens for unauthorized migrants. It’s a clear signal: If you won’t help enforce immigration laws, don’t expect a taxpayer handout.

Now, let’s clarify what “sanctuary city” even means, since there’s no official definition. Generally, it refers to policies that prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE, whether by ignoring detainer requests or failing to notify federal agents about the release of wanted individuals. These policies, to many, seem less about compassion and more about obstructing federal authority.

Judge Orrick’s latest ruling extends the injunction to block Trump’s administration from conditioning or withholding federal funds, a decision that’s got conservatives scratching their heads.

How is it constitutional to let local governments pick and choose which laws to follow while still cashing federal checks? It’s like rewarding a kid for breaking the rules with extra dessert.

“The new plaintiffs have each alleged similar reliance on federal funding,” stated Judge Orrick, pointing to harms in community health and budgetary processes.

While no one disputes the need for funding critical services, shouldn’t there be some accountability when policies directly clash with national security goals? It’s a question worth asking, even if the courtroom isn’t listening.

Additional Lawsuits Challenge Trump’s Strategy

Meanwhile, the legal battles don’t stop with Orrick’s courtroom. On Monday, a separate lawsuit popped up in Rhode Island federal court, claiming the DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime is unlawfully withholding Victims of Crime Act funding from states not playing ball with Trump’s immigration enforcement.

Back to Orrick’s ruling, he’s made it clear he’s not budging. “The challenged sections of Executive Orders threaten to withhold all federal funding from the plaintiffs,” he said, labeling the administration’s stance a coercive and unconstitutional threat. Fine, but isn’t it also coercive to force taxpayers to fund jurisdictions that defy federal law?

Trump has consistently ramped up pressure on sanctuary jurisdictions, viewing them as a major roadblock to his immigration enforcement agenda.

During both terms, his administration has pushed hard to ensure local cooperation with federal efforts. Yet, with judges like Orrick in the mix, it’s an uphill battle against a judiciary often aligned with progressive priorities.

“That coercive threat is unconstitutional, so I enjoined its effect,” Orrick declared, doubling down on protecting new parties in the lawsuit. It’s a strong statement, but one wonders if the scales of justice are tipping too far toward local autonomy at the expense of national unity. There’s got to be a middle ground that respects both.

For now, sanctuary jurisdictions can breathe easy, knowing their federal funding remains safe under Orrick’s watchful eye. But for many Americans worried about border security and the rule of law, this ruling feels like another frustrating detour. It’s a reminder that the fight over immigration policy isn’t just about borders—it’s about who gets to define them.