A federal judge on Friday vastly expanded an injunction blocking the Trump administration from pulling federal funding from cities that limit local police participation in immigration enforcement. The expanded order bars the government from denying funding to more than 30 additional cities and counties, including Los Angeles, Boston, Denver, Baltimore, Chicago and Columbus, all of which have sanctuary-city policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration agents.
This move comes on the heels of an earlier injunction issued in April by Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of Florida, which blocked funding cuts to 16 other cities and counties. The original group was heavily concentrated in California but also included major cities such as Seattle, Portland and Minneapolis.
Judge Orrick noted that the government did not oppose widening the scope of the coalition’s lawsuit and instead had only contested the legal reasoning of the original decision while pursuing an appeal.
What this means in practice is that, for now, the federal government is blocked from withholding funds from a broader set of jurisdictions based on sanctuary-city policies, while the broader litigation over the administration’s funding-conditions policy continues.
Context and potential implications: The ruling underscores a continuing legal clash over the administration’s ability to condition federal funding on local immigration enforcement choices. For the cities involved, the decision offers temporary protection against funding cuts as the case proceeds. For observers, it highlights the court’s willingness to expand protections for municipalities amid ongoing debates about immigration policy and federal funding power.
Summary of key points:
– Friday ruling expands an injunction to prevent funding denials to more than 30 additional sanctuary-policy cities.
– The original injunction covered 16 other cities; the new order broadens that scope.
– The government did not object to widening the case but disputed the original legal reasoning and is appealing.
– The decision preserves funding streams for these jurisdictions during the ongoing litigation.