## Facts

- The President issued Executive Order 13,768 addressing “sanctuary jurisdictions,” directing the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that jurisdictions deemed to “willfully refuse to comply” with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 were ineligible for federal grants, subject to a law-enforcement exception and a clause limiting action to what is “consistent with law.”
- 8 U.S.C. § 1373 bars state and local restrictions on sharing information with federal immigration authorities about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.
- The City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara alleged the order threatened substantial federal funding across many grant programs that Congress had not conditioned on immigration-related cooperation.
- The counties sued federal officials and the United States, asserting that the order imposed unauthorized funding conditions (Spending Clause), violated separation of powers, coerced local governments (Tenth Amendment), and was vague and provided insufficient notice (due process).
- After suit was filed, the Department of Justice issued guidance attempting to narrow the order’s reach to a limited set of grants; the counties maintained the order remained facially unlawful.
- The district court entered a nationwide preliminary injunction, later granted summary judgment for the counties, and issued a nationwide permanent injunction barring enforcement of § 9(a).

## Issues

1. Whether the counties had Article III standing and whether the pre-enforcement challenge to § 9(a) was ripe.
2. Whether the Executive Branch may withhold or condition federal grants based on § 9(a) absent congressional authorization under the Spending Clause and separation-of-powers principles.
3. Whether a nationwide injunction was justified, or whether relief should be narrower.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the counties had standing and the case was ripe based on a credible threat to significant federal funding and present planning and budgeting harms.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the counties, holding § 9(a) was unconstitutional because it attempted to condition or withhold federal grants without congressional authorization, violating separation of powers as informed by the Spending Clause.
- The court vacated the nationwide scope of the injunction and remanded for further findings on whether broader-than-party relief was necessary to provide complete relief.

## Legal Principles

- Congress holds the exclusive constitutional authority to impose conditions on the receipt of federal funds; the Executive may not add or change grant conditions or refuse disbursement without statutory authorization.
- Separation of powers is violated when an executive action claims unilateral authority to alter the terms on which federal grants are distributed.
- General limiting language (e.g., action only “to the extent consistent with law”) does not cure an order that on its face asserts discretion the Constitution reserves to Congress.
- Injunctive relief must be tailored to the plaintiffs’ injury; nationwide injunctions require specific justification and supporting findings.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ruled that § 9(a) of Executive Order 13,768 unlawfully sought to use federal funding to pressure “sanctuary jurisdictions” without congressional authorization, affirmed relief for the plaintiff counties, and required the district court to reexamine and justify any injunction extending beyond them.


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