California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office said in a statement it was still optimistic about its case after the ruling: “While we did not get the immediate relief of a preliminary injunction that we sought, we’re ready to keep fighting in court and remain optimistic because the Administration, as we see it, acted unlawfully.” | Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo Judge declines, for now, to halt part of Trump's anti-sanctuary city policy

A federal judge has turned down a request from the state of California to put an immediate stop to enforcement of a key part of the Trump administration policy aimed at punishing so-called sanctuary cities and other jurisdictions seeking to protect undocumented immigrants.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick did not rule out eventually deciding the case in the state's favor and, at times in the 28-page opinion he issued Monday, he sounded sympathetic to many of the state's arguments about Attorney General Jeff Sessions' stated plans to enforce a 1996 law aimed at requiring local and state officials to cooperate with requests for information about the citizenship and immigration status of individuals they encounter.


However, Orrick said many of the legal issues involved were murky and did not tip so clearly in favor of the state as to warrant a preliminary injunction blocking the Justice Department from using the two-decade-old law known as Section 1373 to deny certain federal grants to localities and states seen to be in violation of the federal law.

"The issues in this case will benefit from further development," Orrick wrote. "I find that the State has not demonstrated that I should issue a preliminary injunction at this time."

POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Even as Orrick denied immediate relief to the state, he questioned the Justice Department's core argument that the 1996 law is clearly linked to preventing crimes by foreigners who are in the U.S. illegally. The San Francisco-based judge noted that the statute doesn't say it applies to only foreigners and is similarly not limited to those implicated in criminal activity or those who are undocumented.

"Section 1373’s language captures so broad a category of individuals that requiring compliance cannot further the goal of better information-sharing between the federal government and local law enforcement regarding illegal immigrants who commit crimes," Orrick wrote.

The judge said the Trump administration's interpretation of the 1996 law remains far from clear, with the Justice Department adopting no specific definition of what constitutes information about "immigration status." Orrick also said that he wasn't convinced by any of the Justice Department's arguments linking the immigration-focused statute to the goals of grants aimed at fighting crime.

"While the federal government fails to identify any goal set out in [a Justice Department] Backgrounder that is furthered by the imposition of the certification condition, I am not prepared at the moment to find that the certification condition is arbitrary and capricious," the judge wrote.

A spokesperson for California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement the state was still optimistic about its case after Orrick's ruling. “The Trump Administration tried to stop our suit and the court said no," it said. "While we did not get the immediate relief of a preliminary injunction that we sought, we’re ready to keep fighting in court and remain optimistic because the Administration, as we see it, acted unlawfully.”

A DOJ official said: "The Justice Department is pleased the court agreed the preliminary injunction should be denied.”

The legal showdown has been looming for some time, but accelerated after Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed a law last October aimed at increasing the state's protections for undocumented foreigners in the wake of a perceived assault by the Trump administration. Orrick, though, said uncertainty about how the state will enforce the law contributed to his decision Monday not to grant the injunction the state requested.

In April 2017, Orrick issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of an executive order President Donald Trump issued early in his tenure in an attempt to crack down on sanctuary cities. Sessions said the order did nothing beyond seeking enforcement of the 1996 law, but in issuing the injunction, the judge said Trump's intent seemed to be to do something broader. At that time, Orrick carved out the Section 1373 issue, saying he would not prevent enforcement of that provision.

Last September, a federal judge in Chicago issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking two key aspects of the Justice Department's sanctuary city crackdown. The injunction barred DOJ from requiring cities to allow immigration agents access to local jails and insisting that local authorities give advance notice when suspected illegal immigrants are about to be released from custody.

The Trump administration appealed the decision to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel heard arguments on the case in January but has not yet ruled.