News & Insights

Case Laws

Separation of Powers and Federal Funding: A Court’s Rejection of Executive Overreach on Sanctuary Cities

February 28, 2025

Case: City of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018).

Summary of Substance and Outcome

This case dealt with a critical question about the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution: Can the President unilaterally withhold federal grants from “sanctuary jurisdictions” without congressional authorization? Sanctuary jurisdictions are cities or counties that limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Facts

In 2017, then-President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13,768, which aimed to penalize sanctuary jurisdictions by withholding federal grants. The order declared that jurisdictions refusing to comply with immigration enforcement laws would not be eligible for federal funding unless the funds were necessary for law enforcement purposes.

The City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, both self-identified sanctuary jurisdictions, challenged the Executive Order. They argued that it violated constitutional principles by attempting to use executive power to control spending—a power explicitly granted to Congress under the Appropriations Clause and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Legal Analysis

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals focused on the following key issues:

  • Congressional Spending Power: The Constitution vests Congress, not the President, with the power to determine how federal funds are allocated. The court held that the Executive Order violated this principle because it attempted to impose conditions on federal grants without congressional authorization.
  • Separation of Powers: The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the balance of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Allowing the Executive Branch to withhold funds in this manner would undermine this balance.
  • Constitutional Protections: The court also considered whether the Executive Order was overly broad and potentially violated other constitutional protections, such as the Tenth Amendment, which limits the federal government’s ability to coerce states.

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Executive Order violated the Constitution by attempting to usurp Congress’s power to control federal spending. The court affirmed a lower court’s decision to block the enforcement of the order but vacated the nationwide scope of the injunction. It remanded the case to the district court to reconsider whether the injunction should apply beyond the two plaintiff jurisdictions (San Francisco and Santa Clara).

Conclusion

This case reaffirmed that the federal government cannot withhold funding from states and local governments unless Congress explicitly authorizes such conditions. It highlighted the significance of the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in ensuring that neither the President nor any other branch oversteps constitutional limits.

Let’s Get Started

Your legal challenges deserve personalized attention and innovative solutions. Contact Oware Justice Advocates PC today for a consultation and take the first step toward resolution and peace of mind.

355 South Teller Street, Suite 204,
Lakewood, CO 80226
(Visits to the office are strictly by appointment only)

303-514-6589

scrolltop