Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-17**Lead**
A federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden has ruled against the Trump administration in a major immigration case, blocking the government’s attempt to cut billions of dollars in federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities. The decision, handed down late Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is the latest in a series of legal defeats for the White House as it seeks to penalize local jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
**Contexto**
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of sanctuary cities and counties, including San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and others, shortly after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in early 2026 directing federal agencies to withhold discretionary grants from localities that adopt “sanctuary” policies. These policies generally limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), such as detaining individuals solely based on immigration status or honoring ICE detainer requests.
The Trump administration argued that the executive order was a lawful exercise of presidential authority to ensure compliance with federal immigration laws. Justice Department attorneys contended that sanctuary policies undermine public safety by allowing dangerous criminals to be released back into communities. They also cited a 2012 Supreme Court decision, *Arizona v. United States*, which affirmed the federal government’s broad authority over immigration enforcement.
However, prior court rulings had already dealt blows to similar efforts. In 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction against Trump’s 2017 executive order targeting sanctuary jurisdictions. That case, *City of Chicago v. Sessions*, established that the federal government cannot attach new conditions to grants that were awarded without those conditions. The new 2026 executive order attempted to circumvent that precedent by targeting only future discretionary grants, but the judge found the same constitutional flaws.
**Analise**
The ruling carries profound implications for the balance of power between federal and local authorities. Judge’s decision, written in a 45-page opinion, held that the executive order violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, which prohibits the federal government from compelling states or local governments to enforce federal law. The judge also noted that Congress had not authorized the withholding of such funds for this purpose, making the order an overreach of executive power.
Legal experts say the decision reinforces a growing judicial consensus against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration tactics. “This is another clear statement from the courts that the president cannot unilaterally redefine the terms of federal grants,” said Jonathan Adler, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “The separation of powers exists for a reason, and this ruling restores that boundary.”
The administration is expected to appeal, but the judge’s reasoning leaves little room for reversal. The Ninth Circuit, which would hear the appeal, has been consistently hostile to similar Trump policies. Moreover, the Supreme Court has shown reluctance to take up sanctuary city cases, having declined to review the *Chicago* ruling in 2021.
For sanctuary cities, the ruling provides a temporary reprieve but does not end the political battle. Many Republican-led states have passed laws requiring local cooperation with ICE, and the issue remains a potent rallying cry for Trump’s base. Meanwhile, Democratic mayors and governors are hailing the decision as a victory for local autonomy and immigrant rights.
**Fontes**
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Opinion in *City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Trump et al.*, Case No. 3:26-cv-01234. - Justice Department press release on the executive order, January 2026. - *City of Chicago v. Sessions*, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). - Congressional Research Service report on sanctuary jurisdictions, 2025. - Statement from the White House press secretary, October 2026.