SANCTARY CITIES
short summary of article
San Francisco protest against Trump 2 immigration policies.
Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/The Standard
Last updated March 2, 2025 xx:xx pm (EST)
Background: What is a Sanctuary City?
Many state law enforcement agencies ideologically opposed to strict immigration regulations have adopted “sanctuary city” policies. This title originates from anti-deportation, sanctuary movements in the 1980’s following large influxes of undocumented immigrants fleeing civil wars in Central America. Networks of religious congregations and activists across the US formed coalitions to lobby for policies to promote trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant populations, regardless of status. This often comes as a byproduct of excluding agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from state-immigration related matters.
There are roughly six hundred sanctuary jurisdictions (cities, states, and counties) spread out across the United States. It has been repeatedly upheld by the courts that the federal government may not compel jurisdictions to take part in immigration enforcement. In 1996, Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was established to allow ICE to partner with state and local law enforcement, though many states have chosen not to enter into 287(g) agreements. While there is no legal or standard definition of a sanctuary city, the term can represent policies which restrict the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal immigration violations, prevent immigration detention centers, or prohibit 287(g) agreements, to name a few. Regardless of these policies, sanctuary jurisdictions must remain in compliance with federal law, meaning that laws that conceal or protect criminal histories or status are prohibited. Popular discussion of these cities became more pronounced in the United States when the 2016 Trump Administration proposed an end to local jurisdiction’s ability to pass sanctuary policies.
What to Know: In the News
High profile sanctuary cities like Chicago and Los Angeles are making the news cycle for their ideological disagreements with the federal government. Rhetoric between large sanctuary cities and the Trump administration is intensifying.
Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson continues to oppose ICE activity in his city. In response to an ICE raid on January 26th–and in preparation for similar raids in the future–local government in Chicago established a “Know Your Rights” website for immigrants to reference and gain more information on the changing policy landscape. Similar resources are being disseminated through localities across the country, and Trump’s “border czar” doesn’t like it: Tom Homan said on CNN, “Sanctuary cities are making it very hard to arrest criminals. They call it ‘Know Your Rights.’ I call it, ‘How to escape arrest.’” Since this quote, the Department of Justice sued the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois arguing that they are impeding the power of the federal government to enforce immigration law. The Trump team filed the case in a Chicago federal court on February 6th.
This is not the first time President Trump has come to blows with Chicago on immigration. During his first term in 2017, Trump threatened to withhold law enforcement funding if the city did not comply with the wishes of the federal government. This time, police funding is not the only thing at risk. On January 31st, President Trump threatened to cease transportation funding to sanctuary cities.
San Francisco is experiencing a similar sense of legal déjà vu. The city, along with a few others, filed a suit against the Trump administration on February 7th, alleging that he has “unlawfully targeted sanctuary jurisdictions” with Executive Order 14159. The last time San Francisco faced off with the Trump administration over denying federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions was in 2017—they came out on top when a federal judge granted an injunction to Trump’s order.
There is still a lot yet to unfold, and it will be interesting to see how the courts rule on these cases. Trump’s pressure on sanctuary cities is part of a broader pattern emerging in his second term of targeting institutions that are impeding his agenda.
Why Does it Matter?
The struggle over sanctuary cities has far-reaching implications. Of course, if Trump is successful in his efforts to induce cooperation on immigration enforcement in sanctuary jurisdictions, sizable migrant populations will be at risk for deportation. Then again, if sanctuary cities hold firm on their current policies and Trump’s administration follows through on their threats, billions in federal funding for critical transportation projects are at stake.
However, beneath this stand-off over sanctuaries is a much larger argument over what power state and local governments hold within our federalist system and what legal recourse the president has to limit it.
The argument in defense of sanctuary cities rests on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that all powers not explicitly reserved by the federal government belong to the states. Additionally, the anti-commandeering doctrine, a legal principle established through several key Supreme Court decisions, supports the right of sanctuary jurisdictions to make their own immigration enforcement policies even when they conflict with federal ones. Even the controversial decision to overturn Chevron in 2024 could provide support for efforts to limit the power of ICE, given that it is a federal agency.
On the other hand, Trump could argue that sanctuary jurisdictions’ refusal to cooperate with federal policies violates the supremacy clause, which establishes federal law as the “law of the land.” Based on his assertion that such jurisdictions “interfere with the enforcement of Federal law,” this appears to be his argument.
What Happens Next?
As these lawsuits play out in court, it will be interesting to see how other sanctuary jurisdictions respond to the threat of funding cuts. Several Democratic attorneys general have stated their intent to stand firm, with California’s Rob Bonta promising he “won’t hesitate to respond” in the event a cut to law enforcement funding does go through. However, with many vital government programs at risk, it remains unseen whether some sanctuaries will be forced to fold to the pressure.
Trump’s first term in office provides some precedent that sheds light on what the future of this case could look like. In 2020, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DOJ could refuse funding to sanctuary cities that refused to share arrest information with federal authorities. While the decision was a win for the federal government back in 2020, this new lawsuit has different terms—now, funding unrelated to law enforcement is in question. This time, President Trump is threatening to cut transportation funding to specific localities that do not comply with federal immigration policy. The scope of this proposal is still undefined, but these higher stakes change the situation from the first time around.
The battle between President Trump and sanctuary cities remains largely unresolved. This term has seen a swift resumption of the same fight from the first time Trump was in office.
Between President Trump’s recent defiant social media declaration and his promise in Executive Order 14159 to take both criminal and civil legal action against non compliant jurisdictions, it seems he is ramping up the attack on sanctuary cities that he began during his first term. As of right now, it seems this fight will play out in the courts once again. Both the court’s decisions—and the level of federal and state accession to them—hold great significance for the fate of sanctuary jurisdictions, countless migrants, and American federalism as a whole.