Which courts have ruled on state bans of sanctuary policies and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
Federal and state courts have repeatedly split over challenges to bans on sanctuary policies: lower federal courts and several circuits have constrained the Trump administration’s effort to withhold grants from sanctuary jurisdictions, the Fifth Circuit largely upheld a Texas state ban, some district courts have struck down key federal statutes like 8 U.S.C. §1373, and the Supreme Court has so far declined to resolve the disputes on the merits by dismissing related petitions [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. The Ninth Circuit and San Francisco: court said funding conditions unlawful, case ultimately resolved without Supreme Court review
A string of rulings beginning with district court injunctions and culminating in a Ninth Circuit decision found that the Trump administration could not impose broad funding conditions on sanctuary jurisdictions; the Ninth Circuit confirmed lower-court wins for San Francisco and invalidated certain federal grant conditions, and the Justice Department later dropped its appeal, yielding a final victory for San Francisco [1] [2] [5].
2. District courts and Section 1373: some courts have declared the federal statute unconstitutional
Multiple federal district courts sided with jurisdictions challenging the federal government’s efforts to compel cooperation, and in one notable decision a federal court in City of Philadelphia v. Sessions ruled that 8 U.S.C. §1373 was unconstitutional—part of a broader line of lower-court rulings finding federal attempts to punish sanctuary policies violative of anti-commandeering and spending-clause limits [4] [6] [7].
3. Circuit splits: 2nd and 5th Circuits diverge on preemption and state bans
The appellate landscape is fractured: the 5th Circuit upheld nearly all of Texas’s Senate Bill 4—a statewide ban on sanctuary policies—allowing Texas to enforce key provisions while appeals proceed, a result hailed by Texas officials as validating state anti‑sanctuary statutes [3]. By contrast, other circuits and many district courts have been more receptive to challenges alleging federal overreach when funding was conditioned or when federal statutes were used to compel cooperation [8] [2].
4. The Supreme Court: declined to decide, dismissing petitions and leaving lower-court results in place
The Supreme Court has not definitively settled the modern sanctuary litigation: in 2021 it dismissed, at the parties’ request, a trio of petitions tied to the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, effectively leaving the Ninth Circuit and other lower-court outcomes intact without issuing a controlling high‑court precedent [5].
5. State courts and state-law angles: rulings vary and can limit statewide bans
Separate from federal suits, state courts have sometimes constrained or interpreted state-level sanctuary bans differently; for example, California charter cities litigated limits and Huntington Beach obtained a state-court ruling about how statewide immigrant-protection laws apply to charter cities—showing that outcomes can turn on state constitutions and statutory frameworks as well as on federal constitutional doctrine [9].
6. Competing narratives, legal doctrines, and hidden agendas
The litigation turns on competing doctrines—federal plenary power over immigration versus the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering principle and the Spending Clause’s limits—and on political stakes: federal administrations seeking uniform enforcement have pushed statutes like §1373 and funding conditions, while cities and states argue those measures coerce local governments and exceed federal authority; many reporting outlets and litigants bring explicit policy agendas into court strategy, with advocacy groups framing outcomes as protections of constitutional federalism or public safety depending on their stance [10] [6] [7]. Where sources disagree—such as whether §1373 is constitutional—the record shows actual courts reaching opposite conclusions in different venues, creating a patchwork of enforceability [4] [8].
Conclusion: what the case law means now
The net effect is legal fragmentation: several lower courts have blocked federal coercive funding and found statutory overreach, the Ninth Circuit has protected sanctuary ordinances against funding conditions, the Fifth Circuit has validated a state ban in Texas, state high courts have produced divergent answers, and the Supreme Court has so far stepped aside—meaning the question of which bans survive depends on forum, specific statutory hooks, and the interplay of federalism doctrines [1] [3] [4] [5] [9].