Case: City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump
3:25-cv-01350 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed Date: Feb. 7, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged the Trump Administration’s authority to withhold federal funding from "sanctuary cities" in order to coerce them to comply with the Administration’s immigration agenda.
On February 7, 2025, five cities and counties – San Francisco, CA; Santa Clara, CA; Portland, OR; King County, WA; and New Haven, CT – filed this lawsuit against President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Represented by their respective city and county attorney’s offices, the plaintiffs sought to challenge Executive Order 14159, issued on January 20, 2025, which directed the Attorney General and DHS to withhold all federal funds from local jurisdictions with sanctuary policies that refused to use their resources to carry out the Administration's immigration agenda. Plaintiffs argued that EO 14159 violated the APA, the Tenth Amendment, Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, and the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary and permanent injunction, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to Judge William H. Orrick.
After filing an amended complaint on February 27, 2025, adding as plaintiffs the cities of Oakland, Emeryville, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz, CA; Monterey County, CA; and the cities of Seattle, WA, Minneapolis & Saint Paul, MN, and Santa Fe, NM. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction (PI) on March 17, 2025.
On March 27, 2025, plaintiffs asked the court to take judicial notice of a February 19, 2025 letter from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to all DHS agencies and offices titled "Restricting Grant Funding for Sanctuary Jurisdictions." The letter directed DHS components to review all DHS federal financial assistance to identify funds going to sanctuary jurisdictions.
On April 24, 2025, Judge Orrick granted a preliminary injunction. 779 F.Supp.3d 1077. The court held that the Cities and Counties had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim: the Bondi Directive’s order to freeze all DOJ funds was likely arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the Constitution, and an ultra vires final agency action under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). Accordingly, it entered an injunction enjoining the federal government from:
[D]irectly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds from the Cities and Counties based on (1) the first sentence of Section 17 of Executive Order 14,159, (2) Section 2(a)(ii) of Executive Order 14,218, or (3) the Preamble and Section I of the February 5, 2025 Memorandum from the Attorney General entitled "Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directives" on the basis that the Cities and Counties have policies that limit (i) the honoring of civil immigration detainer requests; (ii) cooperation with administrative warrants for purposes of immigration enforcement; (iii) sharing of information with federal immigration authorities other than immigration or citizenship status; (iv) the use of local law enforcement to arrest or detain individuals solely for civil immigration violations; or (v) the use of local resources to assist with civil immigration enforcement activities. 783 F.Supp.3d 1148.
On May 9, 2025, Judge Orrick issued a clarification to his preliminary injunction. 782 F.Supp.3d 830. In the weeks between the original PI and the clarification, President Trump issued another executive order which plaintiffs argued merely "repackag[ed]" the enjoined EO. The court agreed, clarifying that its order enjoined any executive order or other government action that withheld federal funding from sanctuary cities where that funding was not itself related to sanctuary policies (e.g., healthcare or transportation dollars).
While briefing was ongoing on the PI motion, the Central American Resource Center of California, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center, three Los Angeles nonprofits serving immigrant communities, filed a motion to intervene as plaintiffs. On June 11, 2025, the court denied the motion to intervene, finding that the proposed intervenors' interests were adequately represented by the existing plaintiffs and that the addition of more plaintiffs could further and unnecessarily complicate any potential relief awarded.
On June 20, 2025, defendants appealed the preliminary injunction, and subsequent orders clarifying it, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing in the appellate court on the issue of the preliminary injunction was set for December 5, 2025.
On June 23, 2025, Judge Orrick issued another clarification to his preliminary injunction, admonishing defendants for their seemingly "empty rhetoric" and reiterating that the injunction barred the coercive withholding from plaintiffs of funds with no nexus to immigration purposes. 2025 WL 1738675.
On July 8, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On July 29, 2025, they filed a motion to expedite and a second motion for a preliminary injunction. On August 5, the court granted the motion for leave to file and two days later, on August 7, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding several new plaintiff cities and counties as well as two new defendants, the Office of Management and Budget and its director. The court held a hearing on the motion on August 13, 2025, and, on August 22, granted the motion and issued a second preliminary injunction. The order extended the original preliminary injunction to include new plaintiffs added in the second amended complaint. Noting that defendants offered no opposition to entry of the expanded preliminary injunction other than that the initial order was wrongly decided, the court explained that it granted the plaintiffs’ request for the expanded preliminary injunction for the same reasons that it issued the original one.
The court also issued an order clarifying that the preliminary injunction reached challenged HUD Continuum of Care grant agreement conditions, explaining that HUD was imposing immigration-related conditions upon grants that shared no nexus with immigration enforcement for the purpose of coercing sanctuary jurisdictions into modifying their policies to conform with federal ones.
On August 26, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In October, defendants also filed a motion to stay all proceedings and suspend upcoming filing deadlines, citing a federal government shutdown. Judge Orrick denied the stay on October 6, 2025, noting the urgency of the pending motions. Briefing on the motion to dismiss concluded on October 16, and the court determined the motion was suitable for disposition without oral argument.
On October 7, 2025, Judge Orrick granted plaintiffs' motion to relate a separate case, County of Santa Clara v. Noem, (No. 25-cv-08330), reassigning it to himself.
The parties stipulated to stay all case deadlines pending the appeal in the Ninth Circuit on January 12, 2026, which Judge Orrick granted the same day.
On January 20, Judge Orrick denied defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and granted the Constitutional Accountability Center leave to file an amicus brief. The court rejected defendants' standing and ripeness challenges, having previously addressed those arguments at the preliminary injunction stage, and found that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their separation of powers, Spending Clause, Fifth Amendment vagueness, and APA claims.
As of April 2026, the case remained stayed at the district court pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of the appeal of the preliminary injunction.
Summary Authors
Nithya Arun (10/10/2025)
Meredith Ulle (2/22/2025)
Clearinghouse (4/25/2025)
Matt Petrillo (8/1/2025)
Amanda Gao (4/12/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69623767/parties/city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-donald-j-trump/
Allen, Jason Michael (California)
Anderson, Ms. Kristyn (California)
Anderson, Kristyn (California)
Ankcorn, Mark (California)
Attorney, Dallas LePierre, (California)
Allen, Jason Michael (California)
Anderson, Ms. Kristyn (California)
Anderson, Kristyn (California)
Attorney, Dallas LePierre, (California)
Attorney, Rebecca S. (California)
Attorney, Meredith Johnson, (California)
Attorney, Lyndsey M. (California)
Attorney, David S. (California)
Attorney, Sara J. (California)
Attorney, Julie Rau, (California)
Aubuchon-Jones, Katherine (California)
Bowler, Michael P (California)
Bronson, Catherine Mary (California)
Brown, Ms. Rebecca (California)
Brown, Rebecca Sarah (California)
Brown, Farimah Faiz (California)
Carroll, Lauren Francis (California)
Coglianese, Richard N. (California)
Counsel, Naomi Sheffield, (California)
Counsel, Patricia Ann (California)
Counsel, Mrs. Maria (California)
Courtney, Katherine (California)
Cowart, Kerala Thie (California)
Craig, Matthew J. (California)
Delaye, Jaime Marie (California)
Dickey, Kevin Scott (California)
Director, Mark Rosenbaum, (California)
Dundas, Michael Joseph (California)
Edwards, Anthony G. (California)
Eiland, Katrina Leigh (California)
Eisenberg, Sara Jennifer (California)
Guile-Hinman, Amanda (California)
Habig, Jill Ellen (California)
Hackett, Mr. David (California)
Holschuh, Rebecca (California)
Hylas, Stephen A. (California)
Jenkins, Mack Eric (California)
Johnson, Meredith Anne (California)
Kennedy, John Ignacio (California)
King, Patricia M. (California)
King-Clancy, Erin (California)
Lathrop, Sara Jeanne (California)
LoPresti, Anthony J (California)
Lough, Gina Bianca (California)
Louk, David Scott (California)
Martin, Jennifer Marie (California)
Mattes, Laura Iris (California)
McCormick, Brittany (California)
Mere, Yvonne Rosil (California)
Mulbarger, Matthew Joseph (California)
Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California)
Pabellon, Carlos A (California)
Raymond-Sidel, Thea (California)
Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California)
Salamas, Jonathan (California)
Sousa, Christopher (California)
Templet, Joshua Michael (California)
Tolentino, Elisa Tanya (California)
Underwood, Katherine (California)
Velasquez, Andrea Michelle (California)
Weddle, Andrea Lynne (California)
Widen, Rebecca S. (California)
Wilson, Stefanie Lorraine (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69623767/city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-donald-j-trump/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 4:12 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 7, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are cities and counties that are classified as "sanctuary cities": San Francisco, CA, Portland, OR, New Haven, CT, Santa Clara County, CA, and King County, WA.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
Donald J. Trump
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 3:25-cv-01350
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-03889
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
Impoundment (mandatory spending)
Case Summary of City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/46136/ (last updated 4/12/2026).