A federal judge in California has issued a ruling that bars the federal government from denying funding to cities like Seattle over their immigration enforcement policies—commonly referred to as “sanctuary” jurisdictions.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick granted an injunction this week in a case led by San Francisco, joining more than a dozen local governments that challenged executive orders aimed at penalizing jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Seattle and King County were among the plaintiffs, having joined the lawsuit earlier this year. The legal challenge argues that key portions of the executive directives are unconstitutional and represent federal overreach.
In response to the ruling, Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison stated that the injunction is “an important win” that affirms the principle that federal funds cannot be withheld based on “unlawful and arbitrary determinations.”
Seattle, King County, and Washington State all maintain policies that restrict local assistance to federal immigration enforcement, allowing cooperation only under limited, defined circumstances.
Mayor Bruce Harrell also praised the court’s decision, describing it as a rejection of attempts to defund public safety grants based on local values. “Our policies are shaped by the needs of our communities, not by political threats,” he said. “This ruling reinforces our right to govern according to those principles.”
The executive orders at the center of the legal dispute instructed federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, to withhold funding from jurisdictions labeled as non-cooperative with immigration enforcement. The directives also called on agencies to ensure that none of their funding supports policies shielding undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Though the federal government argued in court that the injunction was premature—since specific funding had not yet been withheld—Judge Orrick disagreed, pointing to the imminent risk of enforcement and referencing similar legal battles during the Trump administration’s previous tenure.
While the term “sanctuary city” lacks a precise legal definition, it generally refers to policies that limit the extent to which local law enforcement assists Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Local leaders argue that these policies improve public safety by allowing immigrants to engage with authorities without fear of deportation, while emphasizing that immigration enforcement remains a federal responsibility.
King County Acting Executive Shannon Braddock echoed that sentiment, saying the ruling highlights the importance of standing firm on local values. “This decision reinforces our commitment to community trust and justice,” she noted.
Seattle, which prefers the term “welcoming city,” has long resisted efforts to condition federal funding on immigration cooperation. In 2023, the city received approximately $200 million in federal funds—part of a $7 billion overall budget—including around $50 million in pandemic-related relief, most of which has now been phased out.
The court’s decision represents another chapter in the ongoing debate over the role of local governments in federal immigration policy and whether cities should be financially penalized for enacting protective policies for immigrant communities.
