In May the City joined a multi-jurisdictional effort, led by Santa Clara County and the City and County of San Francisco, to protect against threats to cut off all federal funding from local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. (City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, US District Court for the Northern District of California). In Palo Alto, funds at risk include approximately $87 million dollars of grant funding over the next three years for critical local needs like construction of the Newell Road bridge, bicycle and pedestrian safety projects, the Homekey facility to house the unhoused, police safety equipment, construction of an advanced water purification facility, replacement of aging gas mains, levee construction, supplemental firefighting staff, and disaster relief. The Council decided to join this lawsuit to protect these critical federal funds, while complying with state law that requires cities to refrain from involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
September 29, 2025 Update:
Update on City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, US District Court for the Northern District of California:
In June, the federal court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims and that enforcement of the conditions would cause irreparable harm by jeopardizing critical housing, transportation, and homelessness programs. The injunction currently prevents the federal government from withholding federal funding from local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Palo Alto Council Also Acted to Join King County et al. v. Turner et al. and County of Santa Clara v. Noem:
Council action on September 29, 2025, included joining two additional cases to protect City grant funds that advance critical community priorities such as housing, emergency preparedness and public safety, flood protections, transportation safety, and airport operations and safety.
First, the City Council authorized the City Attorney to join King County et al. v. Turner et al. which was filed in May 2025 by a coalition of jurisdictions including King County, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, San Jose, Sonoma County, Boston, Columbus, and New York City. This case relates to how Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Transportation (DOT) (including its sub-agencies the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)) began inserting new conditions into grant agreements requiring adherence to federal executive orders concerning gender and diversity.
The Council also authorized the City to participate in County of Santa Clara v. Noem, a new case filed on September 30, 2025. This case involves a coalition of local governments including the County of Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and others in challenging the insertion of new conditions in DHS and FEMA grants related to federal executive orders concerning gender and diversity. These grants support critical emergency preparedness services, hazard mitigation, and infrastructure improvements to better protect the City’s infrastructure from the effects of natural disasters or major weather events. The City has applied for more than $7 million in grants from FEMA.
As noted previously, Palo Alto provides local public services, including paramedic services, fire protection, police services, library access and recreation opportunities, to everyone who lives, works, and visits our community. This long-established approach to local public services enhances the safety and wellbeing of all. It also complies with the California Values Act, which restricts the use of local resources for federal immigration enforcement purposes. The federal administration’s attempt to leverage federal funding to coerce cities and counties to do the work of federal immigration officials is unlawful, as the Ninth Circuit determined in 2019. The administration’s executive orders on gender and diversity are statements of the administration’s policy preferences, not binding law. The administration’s attempts to use grant funding as cudgel to coerce states and local governments to abandon local policies and conform to the administration’s views is unlawful.
Answers to Possible Community Questions: