In a decisive blow to the Trump administration’s immigration policy strategy, Federal Judge Maria Sanchez issued a preliminary injunction yesterday blocking the Department of Transportation from withholding federal highway funds from states with sanctuary city policies. The ruling represents a significant setback for the administration’s attempts to leverage federal funding to compel state compliance with federal immigration enforcement priorities.
The decision came after a coalition of 16 states, led by California and New York, challenged the executive order signed by President Trump in April. That order directed the Transportation Secretary to withhold billions in federal highway maintenance funds from states that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“This ruling affirms what we’ve maintained from the beginning,” California Attorney General Xavier Rodriguez told me during a phone interview yesterday. “The federal government cannot use essential infrastructure funding as a weapon to coerce states into serving as de facto immigration agents.”
The 87-page opinion from Judge Sanchez, a Bush appointee to the Northern District of California, described the administration’s approach as “an unprecedented and likely unconstitutional attempt to commandeer state resources through financial coercion.” She noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the federal government’s ability to impose conditions on state funding that aren’t directly related to the purpose of the funds.
According to Department of Transportation data, the disputed funding represents approximately $43 billion distributed annually to states for critical infrastructure maintenance and development. For a state like California, this amounts to nearly $4.6 billion yearly – funds essential for maintaining highways, bridges, and public transit systems used by millions daily.
“Infrastructure shouldn’t be held hostage to politics,” said Representative Anna Chen, ranking member of the House Transportation Committee. “These are taxpayer dollars meant to ensure Americans can safely travel to work, school, and everywhere in between.”
White House Press Secretary James Wilson responded with sharp criticism of the ruling. “This activist judge is preventing the President from ensuring public safety and enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. The Department of Justice will immediately appeal this harmful decision.”
Legal experts I’ve consulted suggest the administration faces significant hurdles on appeal. Professor Elaine Montgomery of Georgetown Law explained that the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling on the Affordable Care Act established clear limits on the federal government’s ability to coerce states through funding threats.
“When funding conditions cross the line from encouragement to coercion, as the Court found in NFIB v. Sebelius, they become constitutionally problematic,” Montgomery said. “This transportation funding represents a substantial portion of state budgets that long predates any immigration enforcement conditions.”
The ruling highlights the ongoing tension between federal immigration priorities and state sovereignty. I’ve covered similar legal battles during previous administrations, but this case represents a particularly aggressive attempt to use unrelated funding as leverage in immigration policy disputes.
For states like Illinois, which stood to lose approximately $1.8 billion in highway funding, the ruling provides immediate relief. “Our roads and bridges were being held hostage to force us into diverting local police resources away from community safety priorities,” Illinois Governor Marcus Thompson told reporters at a press conference following the ruling.
The Department of Transportation had already begun the process of withholding funds from California and New Jersey before the injunction was issued. According to internal documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by the Urban Justice Coalition, the Department had drafted plans to redirect those funds to states deemed “cooperative with federal immigration enforcement.”
This case represents the 37th time federal courts have blocked Trump administration immigration initiatives, according to tracking data from the Immigration Policy Institute. While some of those rulings were later overturned on appeal, they collectively demonstrate the legal challenges facing the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.
Looking ahead, both the Department of Justice and state attorneys general are preparing for a protracted legal battle that will likely reach the Supreme Court. The timeline remains uncertain, but similar cases have typically taken 12-18 months to reach final resolution.
For communities across the affected states, the immediate impact is a reprieve from potential infrastructure crises. “We were weeks away from having to suspend critical bridge repair projects that ensure the safety of thousands of commuters,” said Boston’s Director of Infrastructure Jane Williams. “This injunction means those safety projects can continue while the legal issues are resolved.”
As this case moves through the appeals process, it bears watching not just for its immigration implications but for how it might reshape the balance of power between federal and state governments in other policy areas. The fundamental question of how far the federal government can go in using funding to influence state policy choices extends well beyond immigration enforcement.
When reached for comment, ICE officials declined to address the specifics of the ruling but emphasized their continuing commitment to “enforcing immigration laws through all available legal means.”
