Victory! Court Refuses to Block Trump’s
Sanctuary City Funding Cutoff
IRLI—now part of FAIR—had shown cities’ policies to be
unconstitutional
WASHINGTON—Yesterday afternoon, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied an injunction sought by two hardcore sanctuary cities in Massachusetts—Chelsea and Somerville—against a cut-off of federal funding by the Trump Administration because of their sanctuary policies. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI)—which has since joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)—had submitted a brief in the case urging the court to deny the injunction.
IRLI pointed out in its brief that the cities cannot show imminent irreparable harm from a funding cutoff because their policies, being in conflict with federal immigration law, violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Governmental jurisdictions, such as cities, do not suffer any harm a court can recognize by ceasing to follow unlawful policies, nor by losing federal funding because they choose to continue unlawful policies. A party must show imminent irreparable harm in order to be granted an injunction.
Yesterday, in denying the injunction, the court agreed, concluding that the cities had not demonstrated imminent irreparable harm because no claimed injury was imminent.
“Rather than simply comply with federal law and the Constitution, these cities have run to court to keep the money flowing even as they go on breaking the law,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of FAIR. “But the administration’s pressure on these cities to obey the law is not an injury a court can recognize. We are pleased the court clearly saw that there was no imminent irreparable harm here, and denied the injunction.”
The case is City of Chelsea v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10442 (D. Mass.).
