Malcolm Rivera
Former US President Donald Trump's executive order to cut federal funding to 'sanctuary cities' has been blocked by federal judges who have deep financial ties to the Democratic Party. Trump's order, titled Protecting the American People Against Invasion and Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders, was deemed unconstitutionally vague and violate [ing] due process. The judges ruled that Trump's order would violate the Constitution's separation of powers principles, the Spending Clause, and the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. Trump's administration has also been accused of targeting sanctuary cities for their willful failure to comply with federal immigration law. The issue of cutting funding to sanctuary cities has sparked protests and lawsuits, with several jurisdictions suing the Justice Department on the grounds that withholding grant money was unlawful.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Ruling | Blocking the Trump administration from cutting funding to sanctuary cities |
| Judge | William Orrick |
| Judge's political affiliation | Obama-appointed federal judge |
| Judge's political contributions | Donations to the Democratic Party, Obama Victory Fund, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Iowa Democratic Party |
| Judge's ruling | Trump's orders are "unconstitutionally vague and violate due process" and "impose coercive conditions intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law" |
| Judge's statement | "The threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve." |
| Trump's actions | Signed an executive order calling for federal grants to sanctuary cities to be cut |
| Trump's justification | Sanctuary cities may have the right to not cooperate, but they do not have a legal right to obstruct enforcement through harboring |
| Biden's actions | Overturned Trump's executive order, allowing cities that refused to notify federal immigration authorities of people living in the U.S. illegally to access grants |
| U.S. Justice Department action | Repealed Trump-era limits on grants to sanctuary cities |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Trump's executive order to cut sanctuary city funding
During his presidency, Donald Trump made immigration enforcement a key priority. In line with this, he signed an executive order to cut federal funding to so-called "sanctuary cities". These are cities that have adopted policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, arguing that close cooperation with these authorities can deter immigrants from reporting crimes.
Trump's executive order stated that sanctuary cities that did not comply with federal immigration law "may" lose federal funding. The order targeted cities that refused to notify federal immigration authorities when individuals living in the U.S. illegally were detained for criminal violations, including minor ones.
However, Trump's attempts to cut funding to sanctuary cities were blocked by federal judges who ruled that the order was unconstitutional. Judge William Orrick, an Obama-appointed federal judge in California, stated that Trump's orders violated the Constitution's separation of powers principles, the Spending Clause, as well as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. Orrick also argued that the order was “unconstitutionally vague” and violated due process rights.
Trump's executive order prompted numerous lawsuits from jurisdictions, including Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, which sued the Justice Department on the grounds that withholding grant money was unlawful. In one lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favour of the Trump administration, but the plaintiff states appealed to the Supreme Court. After Biden's election victory, this appeal was withdrawn.
Following the 2020 election, Biden overturned the Trump-era policy, allowing sanctuary cities to once again access grants and funding.
The Constitution's Monetary Solution: A United Currency
You may want to see also
Judge William Orrick's ruling against Trump's order
In April 2025, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, an Obama-appointed federal judge in California, issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from cutting funding to sanctuary cities. Judge Orrick's ruling stated that President Donald Trump's executive orders against sanctuary cities were unconstitutional.
Orrick's ruling specifically targeted Trump's orders instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities and counties that did not cooperate with federal immigration law. The judge argued that these orders would violate the Constitution's separation of powers principles and the Spending Clause, as well as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments.
In his decision, Judge Orrick wrote that ""the threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve." He also noted that Trump's orders were ""unconstitutionally vague and violate due process" and "impose coercive conditions intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law."
Judge Orrick's ruling was not without controversy. Records indicate that he has deep financial ties to the Democratic Party and has spoken at events in support of former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama. He has also held leadership roles in committees to elect Obama and John Kerry. These connections have led some to question the impartiality of his ruling against the Trump administration.
Despite the controversy surrounding Judge Orrick's political affiliations, his ruling stands as a significant moment in the ongoing debate over sanctuary cities and federal funding. The ruling reinforces the separation of powers and constitutional rights of cities and counties, even in the face of conflicting federal policies. Subsequent administrations have reversed Trump-era policies on sanctuary cities, further highlighting the contentious nature of the issue.
The Soldier's Oath: Defending the Constitution
You may want to see also
Orrick's claim of Trump's violation of the Spending Clause
U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California blocked the Trump administration from cutting funding to sanctuary cities. Orrick, an Obama appointee, stated that Trump's orders to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities that did not cooperate with federal immigration law violated the Constitution's separation of powers principles and the Spending Clause.
Orrick's ruling stated that Trump's orders were ""unconstitutionally vague and violate due process." He wrote that they imposed coercive conditions intended to force local officials to enforce federal immigration practices and law. Orrick further argued that Trump's orders would cause "irreparable injury" to sanctuary cities and counties in the form of "budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve."
The ruling highlighted that Trump's executive orders against sanctuary cities violated the Spending Clause by imposing conditions on federal funding without congressional authorization, infringing on the localities' due process rights. This decision was based on the argument that the executive branch cannot unilaterally impose conditions on federal funding that have not been authorized by Congress.
What Principles Guide the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Trump's immigration crackdown and its impact on sanctuary cities
Trump's immigration crackdown has had a significant impact on sanctuary cities, with the former president attempting to cut off federal funding to these jurisdictions. Sanctuary cities are those that limit or refuse to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement, such as by refusing to notify authorities when individuals living in the country illegally are detained for criminal violations. Trump argued that these cities were resulting in "so many needless deaths" and that his administration would "end" them.
Trump's efforts to withhold funding from sanctuary cities prompted numerous lawsuits, with several jurisdictions, including Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, suing the Justice Department on the grounds that withholding the money was unlawful. In one lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favour of the Trump administration, stating that it was entitled to withhold grant money. However, this decision was later overturned by the Biden administration, which ended the Trump-era policy of limiting grants to sanctuary cities.
Trump's attempts to cut funding to sanctuary cities were also blocked by federal judges, who ruled that his executive orders were unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers principles, the Spending Clause, and the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. Judge William Orrick, an Obama-appointed federal judge in California, stated that Trump's orders were "unconstitutionally vague and violate due process" and imposed coercive conditions on local officials. Orrick's ruling blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funding from more than a dozen sanctuary jurisdictions.
Trump's immigration crackdown and his attempts to defund sanctuary cities have been controversial, with supporters of sanctuary policies arguing that cooperation with federal immigration enforcement would deter immigrants from coming forward as victims or witnesses to crimes. Trump's critics also accused him of using the threat of withholding funding to coerce local officials into enforcing his immigration agenda. While Trump's administration was unsuccessful in cutting funding to sanctuary cities, his policies and executive orders set a precedent for future immigration enforcement and the targeting of sanctuary jurisdictions.
Setting Up Tropico 5's Constitution: A Guide
You may want to see also
Political affiliations of Judge Orrick and their influence
Judge William Orrick, an Obama-appointed federal judge, has deep financial ties to the Democratic Party. He has made several donations to the Democratic Party's funds and committees, including the Obama Victory Fund, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Iowa Democratic Party. Orrick has also held leadership roles in committees to elect Obama and John Kerry and has spoken at events in support of former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama.
Orrick's political affiliations have influenced his rulings, particularly in the case of blocking the Trump administration from cutting funding to sanctuary cities. Orrick ruled that Trump's executive orders against sanctuary cities were unconstitutional, violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles, the Spending Clause, and the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. He also stated that the orders were “unconstitutionally vague and violate due process” and “impose coercive conditions intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law."
Orrick's ruling was based on his interpretation of the Constitution and his belief in advancing justice. His political affiliations with the Democratic Party, which typically supports immigrant-friendly policies, may have influenced his willingness to block the Trump administration's efforts to cut funding to sanctuary cities.
It is important to note that Orrick's financial contributions and support for Democratic politicians do not necessarily indicate a direct causal relationship with his rulings. As a judge, Orrick is expected to make decisions based on legal principles and interpretations of the law, rather than solely on political affiliations. However, the perception of political bias due to his financial ties has been noted by some commentators.
James Madison: Constitution's Father, Why?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, Trump signed an executive order to cut federal grants to sanctuary cities.
No, an Obama-appointed federal judge, William Orrick, blocked the Trump administration from cutting funding to sanctuary cities, stating that Trump's orders violate the Constitution's separation of powers principles, the Spending Clause, as well as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments.
Sanctuary cities have adopted "sanctuary" policies, arguing that close cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities can deter immigrants from coming forward to report crimes.
Some sanctuary cities include Minneapolis, New Haven, Connecticut, Portland, Oregon, St. Paul, Minnesota, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Seattle.
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61R-n2y0Q8L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
