San Francisco is once again urging a federal judge to enforce a court order blocking the Trump administration from using federal funding as leverage to pressure so-called “sanctuary” cities, accusing the administration of deliberately violating the injunction through a backdoor maneuver.
At the heart of the dispute are two executive orders issued earlier this year by President Donald Trump: “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” and “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.” The orders sought to deny federal funds to jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. In April, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction halting the orders, calling them a reprise of similar funding threats made during President Trump’s first term — and already rejected by the courts.
But according to a new motion filed Friday, San Francisco and a coalition of cities and counties say the Trump administration is now attempting to sidestep the court’s injunction by embedding nearly identical language into a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program — one that funds anti-homelessness initiatives.
The plaintiffs argue that a new condition attached to billions in HUD grants amounts to the same coercive tactics already barred by the injunction. The disputed clause prohibits the use of funds “in a manner that by design or effect facilitates the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”
San Francisco calls this language a thinly veiled version of the enjoined executive orders.
“Defendants are doing exactly what the Court warned against — ignoring the spirit of the injunction while clinging to its narrowest wording,” the motion says.
The plaintiffs say there is no link between HUD’s anti-homelessness services and federal immigration enforcement, calling the government’s rationale a legal smokescreen.
“Defendants have not demonstrated — and cannot demonstrate — any connection between the housing and supportive services funded by these grants and the conscription of local governments into immigration enforcement,” the motion argues.
The city also takes issue with the administration’s defense that the grant condition simply enforces existing federal immigration laws. Instead, San Francisco asserts the language is lifted “nearly word-for-word” from one of the blocked executive orders and is specifically designed to punish sanctuary jurisdictions under a different name.
Further complicating the dispute, the Department of Justice claims that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. limits the scope of injunctions and bars courts from applying them to non-party federal agencies like HUD. But the plaintiffs say that interpretation misrepresents the ruling.
“Defendants misconstrue CASA,” the motion states. “That case limited relief to named plaintiffs, but the Court here enjoined specific defendants and any agency acting on their behalf — which includes HUD.”
The Trump administration has also argued that challenging the new HUD language goes beyond the scope of the original lawsuit. San Francisco counters that the court explicitly barred funding restrictions imposed under the executive orders and that the plaintiffs have already shown they’re likely to succeed on the merits of those claims.
“The Preliminary Injunction applies to any federal agency action to withhold, freeze, or condition funds based on the Executive Orders,” the motion argues. “Trump v. CASA is irrelevant because this injunction only applies to the plaintiff cities and counties.”
In sum, San Francisco accuses the Trump administration of repackaging previously blocked policies and using HUD funding to do what the court already forbade.
“Defendants’ claim that the grant conditions merely require compliance with immigration laws lacks any basis in fact,” the motion concludes. “This is a blatant attempt to revive enjoined executive orders through regulatory sleight of hand.”
The court has not yet ruled on San Francisco’s latest enforcement motion.
