Who Is Judge William Orrick? Key Rulings & Controversies Behind Today’s High-Stakes Court Battle

U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco has once again placed the brakes on the Trump administration’s bid to punish so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, issuing a sweeping order late Friday that bars federal officials from withholding or conditioning millions in law-enforcement grants to 34 cities and counties nationwide. Why Orrick’s latest ruling matters • Expands Protection: The injunction extends a 2024 order that shielded 13 jurisdictions; it now covers Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and 30 others. • Broad Scope: It blocks funding cuts across two major Justice Department grant programs and prohibits the administration from adding new immigration-related conditions. • Constitutional Grounds: Orrick found the executive orders “an unconstitutional coercive threat,” saying Congress—not the White House—controls the purse strings. What the court decided In a 40-page opinion, Orrick said the administration presented “no new facts or legal arguments” to justify stripping grants from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). By extending the preliminary injunction, he preserved existing funding streams earmarked for policing, emergency preparedness and community programs. Background on the sanctuary fight • January 2025: President Trump signed two executive orders directing federal agencies to cut funds from jurisdictions that “shield illegal aliens.” • May 2025: Homeland Security published—then quietly removed—a list of 500+ alleged sanctuary jurisdictions after errors surfaced. • Prior litigation: Orrick’s earlier ruling covered San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and other West Coast governments; it is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Cities on the new protected list (partial) – Boston, MA – Chicago, IL – Denver, CO – Los Angeles, CA – Austin, TX – New Orleans, LA – Atlanta, GA Legal experts weigh in • Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley Law dean, called the order “another reminder that separation of powers still operates even in heated immigration debates.” • Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation said the ruling “ignores Congress’s intent that federal dollars not subsidize lawlessness,” predicting a fast-tracked appeal. Reaction from the White House and DOJ The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Justice Department lawyers have already filed notices of appeal in the earlier sanctuary case and are expected to seek an emergency stay to free up leverage over fiscal-year 2026 funds. What happens next 1. Appeal to Ninth Circuit: DOJ will likely argue Orrick overstepped by issuing a nationwide injunction. 2. Budget deadlines: Cities must certify grant compliance by October 1; the injunction keeps dollars flowing during litigation. 3. Supreme Court watch: If appellate courts split on similar sanctuary cases, the issue could reach the high court in 2026. Key takeaways for cities and counties • Immediate relief: Police departments and community programs relying on Byrne JAG and COPS grants can proceed with spending plans. • Documentation still crucial: Orrick’s ruling does not prevent federal auditing of immigration-related policies; local governments should maintain clear records of compliance with other federal rules. • Political backdrop: With immigration shaping the 2026 midterms, sanctuary funding fights are likely to remain a rallying point for both parties. About Judge William Orrick Appointed by President Barack Obama in 2013, Orrick has become a familiar name in high-profile immigration and technology cases. He previously presided over disputes involving encrypted messaging apps, environmental challenges to federal rollbacks, and the original 2017 sanctuary city order. Bottom line Friday’s decision marks the second time in two years that Judge William Orrick has rebuffed the Trump administration’s attempt to penalize sanctuary jurisdictions. Unless a higher court intervenes, dozens of cities and counties will continue receiving critical federal dollars as the constitutional battle over local immigration policies grinds on.