A Federal Judge Just Blocked Trump’s Executive Order Targeting Sanctuary Cities

Once again, the administration’s public comments undermined his agenda.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


A federal judge in San Francisco blocked a January executive order that the Trump administration was using to threaten to withhold funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions refusing full cooperation with federal enforcement of immigration laws.

In issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction Tuesday, US District Judge William Orrick cited public comments by President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and other administration officials that warned cities that they would lose public safety funds if they did not comply with federal immigration agents’ attempts to locate and detain undocumented immigrants. “If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments,” Orrick wrote.

But it wasn’t just these public comments that influenced Orrick’s ruling. He also found serious constitutional problems with the executive action. The judge’s decision states the executive order goes beyond the president’s authority under the 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s authority over local governments. “The Executive Order uses coercive means in an attempt to force states and local jurisdictions to honor civil detainer requests, which are voluntary ‘requests’ precisely because the federal government cannot command states to comply with them under the Tenth Amendment,” it reads.

The injunction comes out of a lawsuit brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara counties over Trump’s directive, with similar suits pending in other courts. Orrick’s order, which is based on the counties’ likelihood of success in their case, comes just a few days shy of Trump’s 100th day in office, when his administration is attempting to tout his accomplishments despite setbacks in Congress and in the courts.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest