Obama Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Withholding Funds From More Than 30 ‘Sanctuary Cities’

[Doc7505]

Obama Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Withholding Funds From More Than 30 ‘Sanctuary Cities’​

Obama Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Withholding Funds From More Than 30 'Sanctuary Cities' | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A federal judge out of San Francisco on Friday blocked President Trump from pulling federal funds from ‘sanctuary cities.’ US District Judge William Orrick, and Obama appointee, blocked Trump from withholding funds from Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and more than 30 other sanctuary cities.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

22 Aug 2025 ~~ By Cristina Laila

A federal judge out of San Francisco on Friday blocked President Trump from pulling federal funds from ‘sanctuary cities.’

US District Judge William Orrick, and Obama appointee, blocked Trump from withholding funds from Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and more than 30 other sanctuary cities.
The Associated Press reported
~Snip~
Earlier this year Judge Orrick issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump from withholding funding to other sanctuary cities like Portland and San Francisco.
President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders – in his first term – and now in his second term – to withhold funds from jurisdictions harboring illegal aliens.
Santa Clara, San Francisco and 14 other cities and counties sued the Trump Administration. They moved for a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump’s executive orders.
“Here we go again,” Judge Orrick wrote in his 6-page order blasting Trump for his second round of executive orders aimed at ending the subsidization of open borders.
In 2017, Judge Orrick permanently blocked a similar executive order from Trump’s effort to defund sanctuary cities.
The judge said withholding funds from sanctuary jurisdictions is unconstitutional. He said it violates the Fifth and Tenth Amendments and also violates due process.
“Precedent in the Ninth Circuit and the orders of this court show why the Cities and Counties have established that they are likely to prevail on the merits of at least their separation of powers, Spending Clause, and Fifth and Tenth Amendment claims. The challenged sections in the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directive that order executive agencies to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funding apportioned to localities by Congress, violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles and the Spending Clause, as explained by the Ninth Circuit in the earlier iteration of this case in 2018; they also violate the Fifth Amendment to the extent they are unconstitutionally vague and violate due process,” the judge wrote in his order reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.

Commentary:
Indeed! "Here we go again". Every week a black robed tyrant either appointed by Obama or Biden issues an order blocking Trump's agenda.
Once more an appointed Judge attempts to usurp the presidency.
Is anyone keeping count on the Democrat sponsored/appointed judges that are legislating and interfering with national policy from the bench?
US District Judge William Orrick, doesn't have jurisdiction over all those cities. Thus, that "judge" has willfully violated an order by the Supreme Court! Guess he didn’t get the memo on no more nation-wide injunctions. Or, more likely, he did get it and just ignored it.
Boasberg, Orrick and their kind think they run America from the bench, but they eventually do get slapped down by the Appeals Court that correctly interprets the law.
These are Federal Funds that are controlled not by the states or the cities. If they are not utilized properly by the municipalities, the funding can be denied.
As an example, the federal gov't. got all the states to comply with adopting new laws on quite a few issues in the past, namely raising the drinking age to 21 among other things. Told states to comply or lose funding. The states all fell in line.
So why is this different, especially when the POTUS is in charge of immigration?
When some states tried to enforce their own immigration laws during our last two communist presidents, they were shut down by being told only the executive branch can set immigration rules.

 

[Mac-7]

Obama Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Withholding Funds From More Than 30 ‘Sanctuary Cities’​

Obama Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Withholding Funds From More Than 30 'Sanctuary Cities' | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A federal judge out of San Francisco on Friday blocked President Trump from pulling federal funds from ‘sanctuary cities.’ US District Judge William Orrick, and Obama appointee, blocked Trump from withholding funds from Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and more than 30 other sanctuary cities.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

22 Aug 2025 ~~ By Cristina Laila

A federal judge out of San Francisco on Friday blocked President Trump from pulling federal funds from ‘sanctuary cities.’

US District Judge William Orrick, and Obama appointee, blocked Trump from withholding funds from Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and more than 30 other sanctuary cities.
The Associated Press reported
~Snip~
Earlier this year Judge Orrick issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump from withholding funding to other sanctuary cities like Portland and San Francisco.
President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders – in his first term – and now in his second term – to withhold funds from jurisdictions harboring illegal aliens.
Santa Clara, San Francisco and 14 other cities and counties sued the Trump Administration. They moved for a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump’s executive orders.
“Here we go again,” Judge Orrick wrote in his 6-page order blasting Trump for his second round of executive orders aimed at ending the subsidization of open borders.
In 2017, Judge Orrick permanently blocked a similar executive order from Trump’s effort to defund sanctuary cities.
The judge said withholding funds from sanctuary jurisdictions is unconstitutional. He said it violates the Fifth and Tenth Amendments and also violates due process.
“Precedent in the Ninth Circuit and the orders of this court show why the Cities and Counties have established that they are likely to prevail on the merits of at least their separation of powers, Spending Clause, and Fifth and Tenth Amendment claims. The challenged sections in the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directive that order executive agencies to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funding apportioned to localities by Congress, violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles and the Spending Clause, as explained by the Ninth Circuit in the earlier iteration of this case in 2018; they also violate the Fifth Amendment to the extent they are unconstitutionally vague and violate due process,” the judge wrote in his order reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.

Commentary:
Indeed! "Here we go again". Every week a black robed tyrant either appointed by Obama or Biden issues an order blocking Trump's agenda.
Once more an appointed Judge attempts to usurp the presidency.
Is anyone keeping count on the Democrat sponsored/appointed judges that are legislating and interfering with national policy from the bench?
US District Judge William Orrick, doesn't have jurisdiction over all those cities. Thus, that "judge" has willfully violated an order by the Supreme Court! Guess he didn’t get the memo on no more nation-wide injunctions. Or, more likely, he did get it and just ignored it.
Boasberg, Orrick and their kind think they run America from the bench, but they eventually do get slapped down by the Appeals Court that correctly interprets the law.
These are Federal Funds that are controlled not by the states or the cities. If they are not utilized properly by the municipalities, the funding can be denied.
As an example, the federal gov't. got all the states to comply with adopting new laws on quite a few issues in the past, namely raising the drinking age to 21 among other things. Told states to comply or lose funding. The states all fell in line.
So why is this different, especially when the POTUS is in charge of immigration?
When some states tried to enforce their own immigration laws during our last two communist presidents, they were shut down by being told only the executive branch can set immigration rules.

Impeach the judge

 

[kyzr]

Impeach the judge

Ignore the judge.

 

[1srelluc]

Sanctuary locations: Where's our money.

Trump: The check is in the mail.

 

[Mac-7]

Ignore the judge.

Impeaching is legal

Ignoring is not

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Judge blocks Trump from cutting money to Chicago, LA and other cities over 'sanctuary' policies

A judge has ruled the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts.

apnews.com

A judge ruled late Friday the Trump administration cannot deny funding to Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco extended a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from cutting off or conditioning the use of federal funds for so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. His earlier order protected more than a dozen other cities and counties, including San Francisco, Portland and Seattle.

An email to the White House late Friday was not immediately returned. In his ruling, Orrick said the administration had offered no opposition to an extended injunction except to say the first injunction was wrong. It has appealed the first order.

Orrick also blocked the administration from imposing immigration-related conditions on two particular grant programs.
There is no strict definition for sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe places that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces immigration laws nationwide but seeks help from state and local authorities to identify immigrants wanted for deportation and hold them for federal officers.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ignore the judge.

Marching Marburys

It's not even judicial review. Marshall declared that power only for SCROTUS, not for the lower courts at all.

 

[Kilroy2]

A Judge that tells the Emporor Trump that he not wearing cloths.

 

[Kilroy2]

Impeach the judge

The correct answer is appeal to the next higher court.

 

[Mac-7]

The correct answer is appeal to the next higher court.

When the judge is overturned that proves he is ignorant of the law and should be replaced

 

[Kilroy2]

When the judge is overturned that proves he is ignorant of the law and should be replaced

Not necessarily as the law is interpeted and reasonable man can disagree. Supreme court is a good example. They do not always agree and majority wins. Appeals are similiar. Judges may rule differently. It does not proof ignorance as laws are interpeted unless the evidence is indisputable.

About Legal Interpretation

Legal interpretation shapes our everyday lives, from the rules in our communities to our basic rights. But what happens when the words in laws aren’t clear? How do judges decide what these words mean? ContentsUnderstanding Statutory InterpretationUnderstanding Constitutional...

govfacts.org

If they do not like the ruling of one judge , they can appeal. An appeal can go both ways.

 

[BackAgain]

Impeach the judge

No need.

Just appeal the decision.

SCOTUS has already bluntly advised these lower court judges to stay in their lane.

I doubt that they will hesitate, if the District Court decision survives the Circuit Court review, to move again rein in the lower Courts.

Otherwise, I would expect the Trump Administration to ask Congress to statutorily grant the conditioning of “assistance” to these sanctuary cities on compliance with the Supremacy Clause as to immigration issues.

 

[Mac-7]

Not necessarily as the law is interpeted and reasonable man can disagree. Supreme court is a good example. They do not always agree and majority wins. Appeals are similiar. Judges may rule differently. It does not proof ignorance as laws are interpeted unless the evidence is indisputable.

About Legal Interpretation

Legal interpretation shapes our everyday lives, from the rules in our communities to our basic rights. But what happens when the words in laws aren’t clear? How do judges decide what these words mean? ContentsUnderstanding Statutory InterpretationUnderstanding Constitutional...

govfacts.org

If they do not like the ruling of one judge , they can appeal. An appeal can go both ways.

What you are saying that the law is crap and it only depends on how the judge feels that day and who the judge is

But I already knew that

 

[Mac-7]

No need.

Just appeal the decision.

SCOTUS has already bluntly advised these lower court judges to stay in their lane.

I doubt that they will hesitate, if the District Court decision survives the Circuit Court review, to move again rein in the lower Courts.

Otherwise, I would expect the Trump Administration to ask Congress to statutorily grant the conditioning of “assistance” to these sanctuary cities on compliance with the Supremacy Clause as to immigration issues.

Bullshit

These democrat judges are frauds or idiots

Or both

Either way they not worthy of respect

The only use for the courts is to prevent the rest of us from killing each other

But that only works as long as the courts command respect

And the rogue democrat judges sre steadily pissin’ that away

 

[Mac-7]

No need.

Just appeal the decision.

SCOTUS has already bluntly advised these lower court judges to stay in their lane.

I doubt that they will hesitate, if the District Court decision survives the Circuit Court review, to move again rein in the lower Courts.

Otherwise, I would expect the Trump Administration to ask Congress to statutorily grant the conditioning of “assistance” to these sanctuary cities on compliance with the Supremacy Clause as to immigration issues.

SCOTUS has already bluntly advised these lower court judges to stay in their lane.

Which the lib democrat judges ignore

If the piss ant little judges do not have to obey the highest court why should trump obey them?

 

[BackAgain]

Bullshit

These democrat judges are frauds or idiots

Or both

Either way they not worthy of respect

The only use for the courts is to prevent the rest of us from killing each other

But that only works as long as the courts command respect

And the rogue democrat judges sre steadily pissin’ that away

That’s why we have appeals. And, thankfully, the SCOTUS isn’t bound by the Democrat Party’s devotion to being forever partisan.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The correct answer is appeal to the next higher court.

The correct answer is laugh at the judge.

 

[Blaster]

The fact is this judge can't stop Trump from withholding funding.

 

[Mac-7]

That’s why we have appeals. And, thankfully, the SCOTUS isn’t bound by the Democrat Party’s devotion to being forever partisan.

The little judges are ignoring the supreme court

I ask sgain

If the little courts do not obey the superior courts why should we obey them?

What goes around comes around

 

[Blaster]

District courts need to stay in their own lane.