50 Local Governments Sue the Trump Administration
A lawsuit initially brought by 5 local jurisdictions has grown to 50 in a challenge to Trump’s policies toward sanctuary cities
In February, a coalition of local governments filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging Trump’s executive orders against sanctuary cities. Weeks later, 11 more jurisdictions joined the lawsuit, with another 34 joining last week. These states represent more than 28 million people across the country, according to the Public Rights Project, which is representing the Cities of Minneapolis, New Haven, Portland, St. Paul, Santa Fe, and Seattle.
If you’re getting this at 7 AM CST, become a paid subscriber and get these posts as soon as they publish
Sanctuary policies are designed, in part, to maintain the separation of law enforcement powers, limiting how local law enforcement and other government agencies assist in enforcing federal immigration laws, while keeping their resources available for their local communities. The policies vary, but they often involve restrictions on asking about immigration status, honoring immigration detainers, or sharing information with federal immigration officials.
“With respect to sanctuary jurisdictions that are designated [as sanctuary cities], the head of each executive department or agency (agency), in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and as permitted by law, shall identify appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension or termination, as appropriate,” reads one Executive Order
The lawsuit argues that forcing local governments to aid in immigration enforcement violates the 10th Amendment and other constitutional protections, including the separation of powers, while also challenging the “suspension or termination” of federal funding, grants, and contracts. As part of a request for a preliminary injunction in March, parties to the lawsuit explained how federal funding is essential for providing and maintaining public services in their communities.
In April, a preliminary injunction was granted. Earlier this week, the coalition amended its lawsuit to include the additional 34 local governments, bringing the total number of plaintiffs challenging Trump’s executive orders to 50. As the White House threatens to terminate congressionally approved funding unless communities comply with its orders, the Department of Justice (DOJ) authorized investigations of officials who refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement.
“These unlawful executive orders are fear tactics — plain and simple,” said Jill Habig, founder and CEO of Public Rights Project. “The Trump administration is asserting power it doesn’t have to coerce compliance with its extreme federal deportation agenda. We need to ignore the bluster and pay attention to facts: sanctuary policies make us all safer and ensure communities are welcoming places for everyone.”
In May, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a list of cities, counties, and police departments it was targeting under Trump’s executive order. The list faced swift backlash from mayors and law enforcement officials who challenged the list's accuracy and highlighted the negative impacts on community relations and trust. DHS later removed the list, saying it needed to reassess its approach and methodology.
“These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,” said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in May. “We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law.
By creating an environment of fear, citizens and noncitizens alike will be less likely to report crimes to police. These efforts, disproportionately employed in nonwhite communities that blur the lines between federal and state law enforcement, will only create a reluctant society unwilling to cooperate with militarized local and state police and federal authorities. That the cities targeted are largely nonwhite communities speaks to just how problematic all of this is.
Putting a bullseye on local government leaders adds to those fears.
Read the Order Granting a Preliminary Injunction
Read the Lawsuit
Arturo is an independent journalist whose work can be found at Unicorn Riot, The Antagonist Magazine, Latino Rebels, and more. Arturo is also on TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, and Threads. To support his work, become a paid subscriber or donate via Venmo, PayPal, or Cash App.
Residents of states and cities pay taxes to the federal government, and it renders congressionally approved support and services nationwide in return. States are to comply with laws passed by Congress, not executive orders. Republicans also argue that power, unless otherwise directed by the US Constitution, resides in the states, their cities and towns.
They can't both argue states have the right to withhold civil and reproductive healthcare rights at the local and state levels, but must comply with whimsical executive orders. They can't argue only things written explicitly in the Constitution are enforceable and then force states to comply with executive orders not enacted as amendments in the Constitution.
These blue cities and states generally send more tax revenue to the federal government than they receive. If the federal government isn't providing them services because the sitting president doesn't agree with the way they run their states, then maybe the states aren't united after all and blue states and cities should turn off the tap to the IRS.