In the complex landscape of American federalism, few issues have generated as much legal and political controversy as sanctuary jurisdictions and the federal government’s attempts to compel their cooperation with immigration enforcement. Executive Order 14159, signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, represents the latest chapter in this ongoing constitutional struggle, reviving questions about the limits of federal power and the autonomy of state and local governments.
Understanding Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Sanctuary cities are municipalities that have adopted policies limiting their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These jurisdictions, which now number more than 200 across the United States, implement various measures designed to restrict local law enforcement’s collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The policies typically include prohibitions against local police inquiring about immigration status, restrictions on honoring ICE detainer requests without judicial warrants, and limitations on sharing information about individuals’ immigration status with federal authorities.
The sanctuary movement has deep historical roots, dating back to the 1970s when Berkeley, California declared itself a safe haven for soldiers resisting the Vietnam War. However, the modern sanctuary movement emerged primarily in response to federal immigration enforcement policies that local officials believed undermined community trust in law enforcement and public safety.
Proponents of sanctuary policies argue they serve essential public safety functions by encouraging immigrant communities to report crimes and cooperate with local authorities without fear of deportation. Law enforcement leaders in these jurisdictions frequently emphasize that community trust is fundamental to effective policing, and that entangling local police with federal immigration enforcement undermines this trust.
Critics, however, contend that sanctuary policies obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts and potentially shield dangerous criminals from deportation. This perspective has been particularly prominent in conservative media, which often portrays sanctuary jurisdictions as deliberately undermining the rule of law and endangering public safety.
Executive Order 14159: Key Provisions and Objectives
Executive Order 14159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” contains several provisions aimed at prioritizing and expediting the detention and deportation of “inadmissible and removable aliens.” Among its most controversial elements is the directive to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions.
The order revokes numerous Biden-era executive orders related to migration management and asylum seekers, while mandating the construction of additional detention facilities. However, its provisions regarding sanctuary jurisdictions have generated the most significant legal controversy, as they directly challenge the constitutional balance of power between federal and local authorities.
The order specifically directs federal agencies to take “all legally available action” to ensure that federal funds are withheld from sanctuary jurisdictions. This approach echoes similar attempts during Trump’s first administration, which faced numerous legal challenges and were largely blocked by federal courts.
The Department of Transportation has already issued a directive that could redirect federal transportation finances away from local governments that fail to comply with federal immigration enforcement measures. This represents a significant escalation from previous attempts to withhold law enforcement grants, as transportation funding involves substantially larger sums that affect critical infrastructure used by millions of Americans.
Constitutional Challenges to Funding Restrictions
The constitutional questions raised by Executive Order 14159’s funding restrictions center on several key legal principles: the Tenth Amendment, the Spending Clause, the Separation of Powers, and the Due Process Clause.
Tenth Amendment Concerns
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. This amendment forms the constitutional foundation for the principle of federalism, which divides power between the federal government and the states, allowing each to maintain a degree of autonomy within their respective spheres.
Sanctuary jurisdictions argue that federal attempts to compel their participation in immigration enforcement violate the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state and local resources for federal purposes. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state and local officials to enforce federal law.
In the landmark case Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, emphasized that the federal government cannot compel states to implement federal regulatory programs.
Similarly, in New York v. United States (1992), the Court held that the federal government cannot compel states to enact or administer federal regulatory programs. These precedents suggest that federal attempts to force sanctuary jurisdictions to participate in immigration enforcement may violate the anti-commandeering principle embedded in the Tenth Amendment.
Spending Clause Limitations
While the federal government cannot directly commandeer state and local officials, it can influence state behavior through its spending power. However, the Supreme Court has established important limitations on this power in cases like South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).
In South Dakota v. Dole, the Court upheld a federal law that withheld a percentage of federal highway funds from states that allowed persons under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. However, the Court outlined several constraints on the spending power: conditions must be stated unambiguously, must be related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs, must not be prohibited by other constitutional provisions, and must not be coercive.
The “relatedness” and “coercion” requirements are particularly relevant to sanctuary city funding restrictions. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court found that the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion crossed the line from encouragement to coercion by threatening states with the loss of all existing Medicaid funding if they declined to expand coverage.
Executive Order 14159’s attempt to withhold transportation funding from sanctuary jurisdictions raises similar concerns about coercion, particularly given the essential nature of transportation infrastructure and the substantial sums involved. Moreover, the connection between transportation funding and immigration enforcement is tenuous at best, potentially failing the “relatedness” requirement established in South Dakota v. Dole.
Separation of Powers Issues
Executive Order 14159 also raises separation of powers concerns. The power of the purse rests primarily with Congress, not the executive branch. When the executive attempts to impose funding conditions not authorized by Congress, it potentially usurps legislative authority.
During Trump’s first term, courts frequently blocked attempts to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions on the grounds that the executive branch lacked the statutory authority to impose such conditions. For example, in City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the executive branch could not withhold federal grants without congressional authorization.
Unless Congress has explicitly authorized the withholding of funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, Executive Order 14159’s funding restrictions may exceed the President’s constitutional authority and infringe upon Congress’s spending power.
Due Process Considerations
The Due Process Clause requires that government actions affecting rights and interests be implemented with adequate procedural safeguards. Executive Order 14159’s vague definition of sanctuary jurisdictions and the broad discretion it grants to federal agencies in determining which funds to withhold raise serious due process concerns.
Without clear standards for identifying sanctuary jurisdictions and determining which funds are subject to restriction, local governments may lack adequate notice of what policies will trigger funding cuts. This uncertainty undermines their ability to make informed decisions about their immigration policies and potentially violates due process requirements.
Legal Precedents from Previous Challenges
During Trump’s first administration, numerous sanctuary jurisdictions challenged similar funding restrictions in federal court. These cases provide important precedents for evaluating the constitutionality of Executive Order 14159.
In City of Chicago v. Sessions, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a nationwide injunction against the Department of Justice’s attempt to impose immigration-related conditions on Byrne JAG grants. The court found that the executive branch lacked the statutory authority to impose these conditions and that they raised serious Tenth Amendment concerns.
Similarly, in City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the executive order threatening to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions was unconstitutional. The court held that the executive branch could not withhold federal grants without congressional authorization and that the order’s broad scope raised serious constitutional concerns.
These precedents suggest that Executive Order 14159’s funding restrictions face significant legal hurdles. However, the Supreme Court never definitively resolved these issues during Trump’s first term, as the cases became moot when President Biden took office and reversed the policies. With Trump’s return to the White House, these constitutional questions have reemerged with renewed urgency.
The Practical Impact on Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Beyond the constitutional questions, Executive Order 14159 raises serious practical concerns for sanctuary jurisdictions and the communities they serve. The potential loss of federal funding could disrupt critical services and infrastructure, affecting not only immigrant communities but all residents of these jurisdictions.
The Department of Transportation allocates billions of dollars annually to states and municipalities for various infrastructure projects, including highways, public transportation systems, airports, bridges, commuter rail, and ports. Withholding these funds could severely impact transportation infrastructure used by millions of Americans, including many in rural areas of states with sanctuary policies.
Moreover, the threat of funding cuts places sanctuary jurisdictions in an impossible position: either abandon policies they believe are essential for public safety and community trust, or lose funding for critical services and infrastructure. This dilemma highlights the coercive nature of the funding restrictions and their potential to undermine local democratic decision-making.
The Public Safety Argument for Sanctuary Policies
Proponents of sanctuary policies argue that they enhance public safety by encouraging immigrant communities to report crimes and cooperate with local law enforcement. When immigrants fear that any interaction with police could lead to deportation, they may be less likely to report crimes or serve as witnesses, potentially allowing criminals to escape justice.
Several studies support this argument. Research has shown that sanctuary counties have, on average, lower crime rates than comparable non-sanctuary counties. Moreover, studies indicate that sanctuary jurisdictions typically have lower poverty and unemployment rates, suggesting potential economic benefits from these policies.
Law enforcement leaders in sanctuary jurisdictions frequently emphasize that community trust is essential for effective policing. By separating local law enforcement from federal immigration enforcement, sanctuary policies aim to preserve this trust and ensure that all community members feel safe reporting crimes and cooperating with police.
It’s important to note that sanctuary policies do not prevent cooperation with federal authorities in all circumstances. Local officials still collaborate with federal immigration authorities when there is a criminal warrant, and local laws against violent crime apply regardless of immigration status. Sanctuary policies primarily limit cooperation in civil immigration matters, not criminal cases involving dangerous offenders.
The Federalism Argument for Local Autonomy
Beyond the public safety rationale, sanctuary policies reflect the principle of federalism that has guided American governance since the nation’s founding. The Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty, with power divided between the federal government and the states. This division of power serves several important functions: it prevents the concentration of power in any single government entity, allows for policy experimentation at the local level, and enables communities to adopt policies that reflect their unique values and needs.
Immigration enforcement provides a classic example of the tension between federal and local priorities. While the federal government has primary responsibility for immigration policy, local governments bear the costs and consequences of federal enforcement actions in their communities. Sanctuary policies represent an attempt by local governments to mitigate what they perceive as the negative effects of federal immigration enforcement on their communities.
The principle of local autonomy has deep roots in American political tradition and has been embraced by conservatives in many other contexts. Indeed, conservative legal scholars and politicians have frequently championed state and local autonomy against federal overreach. The current debate over sanctuary cities presents an interesting case where traditional conservative support for federalism conflicts with conservative positions on immigration enforcement.
The Political Context of Executive Order 14159
The debate over sanctuary cities and federal funding restrictions cannot be separated from the broader political context of immigration policy in the United States. Immigration has become one of the most polarizing issues in American politics, with stark partisan divides on questions of enforcement, legalization, and border security.
Polling data consistently shows that Republicans and Democrats have different priorities for U.S. immigration policy. Conservative Republicans are particularly likely to prioritize increased border security and deportations, while liberal Democrats tend to emphasize establishing a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants.
These partisan divides are reflected in media coverage of immigration issues. Conservative media sources often amplify concerns about illegal immigration and portray sanctuary cities as undermining the rule of law. This framing can influence public perceptions of immigration and sanctuary policies, potentially shaping political support for measures like Executive Order 14159.
The political salience of immigration issues has incentivized both parties to adopt increasingly hardline positions. During the 2024 presidential campaign, even the Democratic Party’s platform shifted rightward on immigration, reflecting concerns about electoral vulnerability on this issue. This political dynamic complicates efforts to find compromise solutions that balance federal immigration enforcement with local autonomy and community safety concerns.
Recent Legal Challenges to Executive Order 14159
Several sanctuary jurisdictions have already filed lawsuits challenging Executive Order 14159 and related federal actions. In February 2025, San Francisco led a coalition of jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County, the City of New Haven, King County, and the City of Portland, in filing a lawsuit against the federal government.
The lawsuit alleges that Executive Order 14159 and related Department of Justice memoranda violate the Tenth Amendment, Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. It asks the court to declare these federal actions unlawful and enjoin the federal government from enforcing the challenged provisions.
Simultaneously, the federal government has filed lawsuits against several sanctuary jurisdictions, including Chicago, Cook County, and the state of Illinois, alleging that their sanctuary policies obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts. The Department of Justice has also sued New York over its Green Light Law, which allows immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses regardless of their immigration status while protecting their privacy from federal immigration enforcement agencies.
These legal battles will likely take months or years to resolve, creating significant uncertainty for sanctuary jurisdictions and the communities they serve. In the meantime, the threat of funding cuts may pressure some jurisdictions to modify their policies, potentially undermining local autonomy and community trust in law enforcement.
Legislative Efforts to Target Sanctuary Jurisdictions
In addition to executive actions, congressional Republicans have introduced legislation targeting sanctuary jurisdictions. The “No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act” would end any federal funds for sanctuary jurisdictions that are determined to be intended for the benefit of undocumented immigrants.
The bill defines sanctuary jurisdictions broadly, including any state, city, county, or locality that has a policy prohibiting or limiting local law enforcement from taking steps to facilitate deportations. This includes jurisdictions that limit their provision of information to federal immigration enforcement about the citizenship or immigration status of someone in their custody, as well as jurisdictions that decline to honor ICE detainer requests.
The funds that would be stripped under this bill are those determined to be “for the benefit” of undocumented immigrants, including “provision of food, shelter, healthcare services, legal services, and transportation.” However, the bill does not clearly define “for the benefit,” potentially giving the executive branch broad discretion in determining which programs would be affected.
Critics argue that this legislation would force cities and states to choose between facilitating mass deportations or losing funding for essential services like healthcare, education, transportation, and domestic violence response. This presents a coercive choice that potentially violates constitutional principles of federalism and the Spending Clause limitations established by the Supreme Court.
Congressional Oversight of Sanctuary Cities
Congressional Republicans have also used their oversight authority to pressure sanctuary jurisdictions. In March 2025, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing featuring the mayors of four sanctuary cities: Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York.
During the hearing, Republican lawmakers attempted to portray sanctuary cities as unlawful and suggested that the mayors could face criminal prosecution for their policies. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Arizona) claimed that the mayors were “exposed to criminal culpability,” while Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) stated that she would refer the mayors to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
These threats of criminal prosecution represent a significant escalation in the federal government’s approach to sanctuary jurisdictions. However, legal experts generally agree that sanctuary policies are protected by the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, and that local officials cannot be prosecuted for declining to assist with federal immigration enforcement.
The mayors defended their cities’ sanctuary policies during the hearing, emphasizing their positive effects on public safety and community trust. Mayor Michelle Wu of Boston argued that if Congress wanted to make cities safer, it should pass gun reforms and stop cutting funding for healthcare, cancer research, and veterans’ services, rather than targeting sanctuary policies.
The Role of Media in Shaping Public Perception
Media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping public perception of sanctuary cities and immigration policy more broadly. Conservative media sources tend to amplify concerns about illegal immigration and portray sanctuary jurisdictions as deliberately undermining federal law enforcement and endangering public safety.
This framing can influence how the public perceives sanctuary policies and the constitutional questions they raise. By emphasizing crime and security concerns, conservative media may shift public opinion toward supporting federal efforts to compel local cooperation with immigration enforcement, potentially undermining support for federalism principles in this context.
The media’s role in shaping immigration discourse highlights the importance of accurate information about sanctuary policies and their effects. Research on the relationship between sanctuary policies and crime rates, for example, can provide an empirical basis for evaluating competing claims about public safety. Similarly, legal analysis of the constitutional questions at stake can help the public understand the principled basis for local autonomy in immigration enforcement.
The Future of Sanctuary Jurisdictions
The future of sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States remains uncertain. The legal challenges to Executive Order 14159 will likely take months or years to resolve, and the outcome will depend on how courts interpret constitutional principles of federalism, the Spending Clause, and separation of powers.
In the meantime, sanctuary jurisdictions face difficult choices. They must weigh their commitment to policies they believe enhance public safety and community trust against the potential loss of federal funding for essential services and infrastructure. Some jurisdictions may modify their policies to avoid funding cuts, while others may stand firm and challenge federal actions in court.
The debate over sanctuary jurisdictions also raises broader questions about the future of federalism in American governance. If the federal government can effectively compel local cooperation with its enforcement priorities through funding restrictions, the principle of dual sovereignty that has guided American federalism since the founding may be significantly weakened.
At the same time, the controversy over sanctuary cities highlights the deep political divisions on immigration policy in the United States. Finding a path forward that respects both federal authority over immigration and local autonomy in law enforcement remains a significant challenge for American democracy.
Conclusion
Executive Order 14159’s attempt to restrict federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions raises fundamental questions about the constitutional balance of power between federal and local authorities. These questions touch on core principles of American governance: federalism, the separation of powers, and the limits of federal authority to influence state and local policy through funding conditions.
The legal challenges to Executive Order 14159 will likely shape the future of sanctuary jurisdictions and, more broadly, the relationship between federal and local governments in immigration enforcement. As these challenges proceed through the courts, sanctuary jurisdictions must navigate the tension between their commitment to policies they believe enhance public safety and community trust, and the potential loss of federal funding for essential services and infrastructure.
Beyond the legal questions, the debate over sanctuary cities reflects deeper political divisions on immigration policy in the United States. Finding common ground on these issues remains a significant challenge for American democracy, requiring a balanced approach that respects both federal authority over immigration and local autonomy in law enforcement.
As the legal and political battles over sanctuary cities continue, it is essential to maintain focus on the fundamental constitutional principles at stake and the practical implications for communities across the United States. The resolution of these conflicts will shape not only immigration enforcement but also the future of federalism in American governance.
Website Citations:
- https://interfaithalliance.org/post/tracking-trumps-executive-orders-sanctuary-jurisdictions
- https://immigrationforum.org/article/are-sanctuary-policies-unlawful-state-and-municipal-prerogatives-to-collaborate-with-federal-immigration-authorities/
- https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2025/02/07/san-francisco-leads-lawsuit-protecting-sanctuary-jurisdictions-from-illegal-federal-overreach/
- https://refugees.org/cuts-to-federal-funding-for-sanctuary-cities-will-endanger-communities/
- https://www.immlawfl.com/blog/2024/12/how-could-american-immigration-laws-change-in-2025/
- https://www.quirogalawoffice.com/the-future-of-sanctuary-cities-in-the-us-after-trump/
- https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539&context=cusrd_abstracts
- https://theimmigrationhub.org/article/july-2024-right-wing-media-report/
- https://truthout.org/articles/after-failures-in-the-courts-the-gop-is-threatening-sanctuary-city-mayors/
- https://www.nilc.org/articles/this-bill-would-slash-city-and-state-funding-for-not-facilitating-mass-deportations/
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/31/upshot/sanctuary-cities-trump-transportation-funds.html
- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/08/republicans-and-democrats-have-different-top-priorities-for-u-s-immigration-policy/
- https://apnews.com/article/congress-sanctuary-cities-trump-immigration-border-49766af8d0bad4be8b4e46d0ffa0ab02
- https://www.aila.org/library/president-trump-signs-executive-order-protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion
- https://immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/content-type/commentary-item/documents/2025-03/NIJC-statement_House-Oversight-hearing_sanctuary-mayors_2025-03-05.pdf
- https://www.epi.org/policywatch/doj-memo-on-sanctuary-jurisdiction-directives-cuts-funding-for-state-and-local-jurisdictions-and-ngos/
- https://www.portland.gov/hello/news/2025/2/7/portland-joins-sanctuary-city-lawsuit-against-trump-administration
- https://substack.com/home/post/p-157070458
- https://theimmigrationhub.org/article/sanctuary-cities-primer/
- https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11438
- https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/potus-issues-executive-order-directing-doj-and-dhs-to-take-civil-and-criminal-enforcement-action-against-sanctuary-jurisdictions/
- https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/sanctuary-policies-overview
- https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/
- https://www.ncsl.org/immigration/sanctuary-policy-faq
- https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2025/trump-executive-orders-and-implications-for-cities-and-public-agencies
- https://time.com/7222159/what-are-sanctuary-cities-why-is-trump-targeting-them/
- https://www.nycbar.org/reports/the-trump-administrations-early-2025-changes-to-immigration-law/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/03/12/trump-sanctuary-cities-immigration-deportations/
- https://immigrationforum.org/article/legislative-bulletin-friday-february-7-2025/
- https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/politics/sanctuary-city-mayors-congress-hearing/index.html
- https://international.globallearning.cornell.edu/alerts/guidance-possible-immigration-changes-2025
- https://www.globalrefuge.org/news/sanctuary-cities-explained/
- https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/can-sanctuary-cities-survive-second-trump-administration
- https://americangerman.institute/publication/center-right-parties-and-immigration/
- https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/three-ways-the-media-introduces-bias-to-the-immigration-debate
- https://www.newsweek.com/sanctuary-city-hearing-james-comer-ayanna-pressley-chaos-2040235
- https://immigrationlab.org/project/migration-driving-support-radical-right-not-way-people-think/
- https://www.aclu-or.org/en/news/three-ways-media-introduces-bias-immigration-debate
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/us/democrats-sanctuary-cities-trump.html
- https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/12/immigration-was-a-top-focus-of-early-biden-coverage-especially-among-outlets-with-right-leaning-audiences/
- https://www.allsides.com/topics/immigration
- https://san.com/cc/los-angeles-passes-new-sanctuary-city-ordinance-before-trump-takes-office/
- https://guides.library.brandeis.edu/c.php?g=844730&p=6037962
- https://tccjtsu.com/locating-the-medias-role-in-empathy-for-immigration/
- https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/explaining_the_sanctuary_cities_executive_order_finalv2.pdf
- https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
- https://www.networkforphl.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Immigration-Executive-Actions-and-Public-Health.pdf
- https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/year-ahead-2025-immigration-issues
- https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-sanctuary-mayors-refuse-to-change-policies-that-obstruct-federal-immigration-enforcement-and-protect-dangerous-criminal-aliens/
- https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2025/1/published-articles/5-trends-to-watch-2025-immigration-compliance
- https://www.mediamatters.org/diversity-discrimination/after-trumps-barrage-anti-transgender-executive-orders-right-wing-media
- https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/democrats-and-republicans-starkly-divided-immigration-policy
- https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/republican-concerns-over-immigration-hit-all-time-high
English 
Español de México