San Francisco and several other cities and counties are once again accusing the Trump administration of trying to illegally cut off federal funds based on immigration enforcement policies — despite a court order already blocking such actions.
According to a new legal filing, the Trump team is allegedly ignoring a court injunction and using new wording to sneak in conditions that had already been declared illegal.
Background: Court Already Blocked Similar Actions
The legal fight began when San Francisco and other cities sued the Trump administration over two executive orders issued earlier in the year — one titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” and the other “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.”
These orders threatened to stop federal funds to cities that don’t support federal immigration enforcement, often referred to as “sanctuary cities.”
A federal judge, William Orrick, blocked those orders in April 2025 through a preliminary injunction. He said they were very similar to earlier funding threats from Trump’s first term — which had already been ruled illegal.
However, just days later, Trump issued another executive order trying to cut off funding once again. On May 9, the judge stepped in and blocked that order too.
What’s the Latest Problem?
Now, San Francisco and the other plaintiffs say the Trump administration is violating the court’s orders by trying to add a new rule to HUD (Housing and Urban Development) anti-homelessness grants. This rule says that cities can’t use the grants in any way that “promotes illegal immigration” or helps people avoid deportation.
The cities argue this rule is just a sneaky way to do what the court already said was not allowed — using federal funding to pressure local governments into enforcing immigration laws.
San Francisco’s Main Arguments
San Francisco’s lawyers say:
There’s no real connection between homelessness grants and immigration enforcement. These funds are meant to help the homeless, veterans, and at-risk youth — not enforce federal immigration laws.
The Trump administration is just repeating the same threat in a new way. The new condition uses almost the exact same language as one of the blocked executive orders.
The government is pretending this is about “following immigration law,” but there is no legal basis for attaching this kind of rule to these funds.
The HUD rule breaks the court’s injunction — which clearly said any attempt to punish cities by withholding funds over immigration policies is not allowed.
DOJ’s Response and San Francisco’s Reply
The Department of Justice (DOJ) says the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA limits the reach of injunctions and argues that HUD wasn’t even part of the original lawsuit. So, they claim, the injunction doesn’t apply to HUD.
But San Francisco says that’s not true. They point out that the court’s order clearly covers any federal agency or official acting under Trump’s executive orders. So, even if HUD wasn’t originally named, it still has to follow the injunction.
They also say the Supreme Court decision (CASA) is being misunderstood. That case was about not giving nationwide relief to people who weren’t part of the lawsuit. In this case, the relief is only for the plaintiff cities and counties, so CASA doesn’t apply at all.
Trying to Dodge the Court Order?
San Francisco accuses the Trump administration of playing games with legal wording — trying to follow the “letter” of the court’s order while ignoring its real purpose. The new HUD condition, they say, is just another version of the same illegal funding threats the court already blocked.
The city is now asking the court to step in once again and stop the administration from adding these conditions to the homelessness grants.
San Francisco and other cities are standing firm in their fight against federal funding threats tied to immigration policies. They believe the Trump administration is simply repackaging illegal actions in new language, and they want the court to hold the government accountable.
The case continues to unfold, but for now, the cities argue that the rule of law — and protection for local decisions — must come first.
