Dear IMLA Immigration Working Group: I am attaching the order clarifying the preliminary injunction in San Francisco v. Trump in light of the newest Executive Order, " Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens." While the court does not enjoin the enforcement of the new EO, the judge does clarify that this new EO may not be used as an end run around the original PI (nor may any other government action). The judge explains: In light of all these considerations, I clarify that neither Executive Order 14,287 nor any other Government action that postdates the Preliminary Injunction can be used as an end run around the Preliminary Injunction Order. See Inst. Of Cetacean Research, supra. The language "based on the first sentence of Section 17 of Executive Order 14,159, Section 2(a)(ii) of Executive Order 14,218, or the Preamble and Section I of the February 5, 2025, memo from the Attorney General defendant Pamela Bondi (the "Bondi Directive")" shall be read to apply to any Executive Order or agency directive that purports to attempt to cut off federal funding from States or localities that meet the Government's definition of "sanctuary" jurisdiction in the wholesale, overly broad and unconstitutional manner threatened by Section 17 of EO 14,159 and Section 2(a)(ii) of EO 14,218. The judge notes that there is nothing improper about section 2 of the new EO that calls on the Attorney General and DHS Secretary to publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions and then notify them of their inclusion that list. The judge calls section 3 closer to the previously enjoined EOs but notes the requirement to identify funds to be rescinded by itself is not inappropriate, particularly if it is done in a way that evaluates a nexus between the funding stream and the desired immigration conditions. The court reiterates throughout the order that it would be inappropriate to withhold all federal funds or funds unrelated to immigration / sanctuary policies. The court also explains that the government may still place conditions on federal funds, it just must do so in a lawful way under the Constitution: The Preliminary Injunction is not intended to hamstring the Government's lawful evaluation of federal funds to States and localities that have sanctuary policies. It seems relatively easy to identify categories of funds that have little or nothing to do with sanctuary policies (such as healthcare, transportation, emergency relief and so forth), that would have an unlawfully coercive effect on the Cities and Counties if those categories of funds were identified for suspension or termination; to do so would violate the Preliminary Injunction. Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.