A federal judge in San Francisco has stood as a bulwark against the power of the White House, blocking the Trump administration from cutting off federal funding to dozens of so-called “sanctuary” cities and counties. This is not a ruling on the merits of immigration policy.
It is a powerful and constitutionally significant affirmation of American federalism and the limits of presidential power.
The decision by U.S. District Judge William Orrick is a profound “teaching moment.” It dusts off and applies two of the most important, and often misunderstood, constitutional doctrines that protect the sovereignty of our states from an overreaching federal government.
The President’s Order, The Judge’s Rebuke
The case stems from a series of executive orders signed by President Trump, which direct every federal agency to withhold funds from any state or local jurisdiction that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The administration has argued that it cannot allow federal tax dollars to “abet” local policies that shield undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Judge Orrick, in extending a preliminary injunction that now protects 34 jurisdictions, including major cities like Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles, declared the administration’s actions an “unconstitutional ‘coercive threat.’”
To understand why, we must look to two landmark Supreme Court precedents.
A Lesson in the 10th Amendment: The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
The first and most important principle at play is federalism, rooted in the 10th Amendment. This amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. One of these core reserved powers is the “police power”—the authority to direct state and local law enforcement.
The Supreme Court, in the landmark 1997 case Printz v. United States, established what is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. The Court ruled that the federal government cannot “commandeer” or force state and local officials to enforce federal law.
Just as the federal government could not force a local sheriff to conduct federal background checks in the Printz case, Judge Orrick’s ruling affirms that it cannot force local police to act as agents of federal immigration enforcement.
The “Gun to the Head”: Unconstitutional Coercion
The administration’s primary weapon in this fight is not a command, but a threat: cooperate with ICE, or we will cut off your federal funding. This is where the second constitutional principle comes in: the limits of the federal Spending Power.
While Congress can attach conditions to the money it gives to states, the Supreme Court has ruled that this power is not unlimited. In the 2012 Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the federal government cannot put a “gun to the head” of the states.
A threat to cut off massive amounts of existing, unrelated funding to force a state to comply with a new federal mandate is not a legitimate use of the spending power; it is unconstitutional “coercion.”
Judge Orrick’s ruling is a direct application of this precedent. He found that the President’s threat to strip cities of billions of dollars in federal grants was exactly the kind of “coercive threat” the Supreme Court has already forbidden.
This ruling is a significant victory for the principles of federalism and the separation of powers. It is a powerful reminder that in our constitutional system, states are not mere administrative departments of the federal government. They are sovereign entities, and a president cannot use the power of the purse as a weapon to force them into submission.