Activist Judge Halts President Trump's Sanctuary Funding Cuts Amid Escalating Lawfare Onslaught

August 23, 2025 - In another episode of judicial overreach thwarting the America First agenda, U.S. District Judge William Orrick—an Obama appointee—extended a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump's administration from withholding federal funds from 34 sanctuary cities and counties, including Boston, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles. The ruling perpetuates the lawfare campaign aimed at derailing efforts to enforce immigration laws and protect American communities from policies shielding illegal aliens.

Orrick's decision expands an earlier order safeguarding over a dozen jurisdictions like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, deeming the administration's actions an unconstitutional "coercive threat." It prohibits imposing immigration-related conditions on two key grant programs, preserving billions in taxpayer dollars for localities that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The judge dismissed the administration's opposition, noting their sole argument was that the initial injunction was erroneous—an appeal of which is already underway.

The case stems from President Trump's executive orders issued early in his second term, directing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to deny federal grants to "sanctuary" jurisdictions that hinder deportation efforts. These policies, varying by locale but generally restricting local law enforcement from notifying ICE about illegal aliens in custody or honoring detainer requests, have long enabled criminal elements to evade justice. Trump's directives aimed to fulfill campaign promises by pressuring non-compliant areas, potentially withholding funds from programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.

In May 2025, DHS published a list of over 500 noncompliant jurisdictions, later revised after inaccuracies. The Justice Department sued cities like New York and Los Angeles, arguing sanctuaries violate federal law by abetting illegal immigration. The 34 entities sued, claiming the cuts endanger public safety and violate the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine. Orrick sided with them, echoing prior blocks on similar first-term efforts.

This ruling exemplifies the relentless judicial assault on President Trump's policies, with over 220 lawsuits filed against his second administration in its first 100 days alone—more than ten times Obama's 20 in his initial year and quadruple Biden's roughly 50. By May 2025, trackers tallied 328 challenges to executive actions, surpassing first-term highs of around 133 multistate suits over four years. State attorneys general, predominantly Democrats, have led 133 actions against Trump since 2017, on pace to exceed that in his current term.

These filings dwarf predecessors: Obama's full eight years saw about 100 major suits, while Biden faced 133 multistate challenges. Critics attribute the surge to coordinated resistance from blue states and activist groups, weaponizing courts to stymie immigration enforcement, energy independence, and deregulation—core Trump priorities.

Yet, history shows many such obstructions crumble on appeal. In President Trump's first term, lower judges blocked the travel ban three times, only for the Supreme Court to uphold it 5-4 in 2018. DACA rescission was halted nationwide, but SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in 2020 that the administration could end it, though procedural flaws delayed action. Border wall funding diversions were enjoined multiple times, yet appeals courts largely allowed construction to proceed, enabling 455 miles built.

Other examples: The census citizenship question was blocked in 2019, with SCOTUS upholding the block on technical grounds but not barring future inclusion. Asylum restrictions faced injunctions, but several were narrowed or reversed on appeal. Overall, while Trump lost 93% of initial agency challenges, higher courts reversed or modified over 60% of those, vindicating executive authority.

The administration vows to appeal Orrick's order to the Ninth Circuit—historically hostile but with recent Trump appointees shifting dynamics—potentially escalating to the Supreme Court, where a 6-3 conservative majority has favored executive immigration powers. Meanwhile, DOJ suits against individual cities proceed, and Trump could refine orders to withstand scrutiny.

As lawfare persists, President Trump's team presses on, leveraging tools like rapid deportations and border security enhancements to counter judicial roadblocks, ensuring America's sovereignty remains intact despite activist interference.