How have federal courts ruled in past cases where DOJ or DHS tried to withhold grants from sanctuary cities?
Executive summary
Federal courts in multiple incidents have repeatedly restrained the executive branch from conditioning or withholding federal grants from so‑called “sanctuary” jurisdictions—finding prior DOJ/DHS schemes likely exceeded statutory authority, failed spending‑condition tests, or were unconstitutionally coercive—while litigation continues and the government signals it will appeal or press on [1] [2] [3].
1. Early rulings: judges rejected unilateral grant‑conditioning as beyond DOJ authority
Beginning with litigation that followed the Trump administration’s 2017 threats, a string of federal courts found that the Attorney General (and by extension agencies like DHS) lacked statutory authority to impose new eligibility conditions on discretionary grants to punish local sanctuary policies, with courts concluding those restrictions were not authorized by Congress and therefore unlawful [1] [4] [5].
2. The legal tests courts applied: nexus, notice, and coercion
Reviewing judges have applied familiar spending‑condition and constitutional principles: conditions must have a clear nexus to the purpose of the funding, give clear notice to recipients, and not be so coercive as to compel state or local governments to take on federal duties; courts concluded many sanctuary‑funding conditions failed those tests and thus could not be imposed without congressional authorization [6] [1].
3. Preliminary injunctions in 2025: district courts stopped freezes and denials
In 2025, several district courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking federal attempts to freeze or withhold broad categories of grants—Judge William Orrick enjoined the government from freezing funds to Portland and other jurisdictions and characterized the Bondi directive as likely arbitrary, capricious, and coercive, while Judge Mary McElroy similarly enjoined planned cuts to Homeland Security grant programs for a coalition of states and attorneys general [2] [3] [7].
4. Appeals posture and government response: litigation is ongoing and the administration vows to fight
Despite those injunctions, the administration has defended its actions as within executive authority to ensure compliance with statutes like 8 U.S.C. §1373 and to enforce executive orders; DHS and DOJ have signaled they will contest the rulings in higher courts and continue administrative steps such as publishing lists of jurisdictions and issuing directives tying grant eligibility to compliance, keeping the issue squarely in play [3] [8] [9].
5. Pattern and precedent: courts favored localities when congressionally‑limited funds were targeted
Across the reported cases, the recurring judicial message is that the executive cannot unilaterally rewrite grant terms in ways that coerce state or local governments to perform federal immigration enforcement or to waive local policymaking unless Congress explicitly authorizes such conditions; that pattern echoes earlier appellate rulings and administrative setbacks dating to the first Trump administration [5] [1] [4].
6. Division among courts and commentators: not all agree the matter is settled
Analysts and policy groups note some divergence across decisions and emphasize that federal courts are not monolithic—while many courts blocked the most sweeping funding conditions, commentators warn litigation is ongoing and some judges or circuits might reach different conclusions depending on how narrowly a condition is drawn or tied to grant purposes, meaning the legal landscape remains contested [10] [9].
7. Political context and implicit agendas shaping litigation
The disputes over withholding funds are inseparable from partisan politics and executive priorities: executive orders and agency memos explicitly target jurisdictions described as “sanctuary,” and several sources link these enforcement moves to broader political aims of the administration, which has previously sought to use funding levers to influence state and local policy—an implicit agenda the courts have repeatedly pushed back against as overreach [11] [6] [12].
8. Bottom line: judiciary has been a robust check, but final answers await appeals or congressional action
Until appellate courts or the Supreme Court definitively rule, or Congress enacts statutes expressly authorizing specific conditions, federal judges have generally blocked DOJ/DHS attempts to withhold or condition grants from sanctuary jurisdictions on immigration‑enforcement compliance, finding such moves exceed executive power or fail spending‑condition tests; the government continues to litigate and argue for a different result [2] [5] [3].