City Attorney’s litigation against Federal Administration has preserved billions in funding for San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (January 20, 2026) — One year into Donald Trump’s return to the Presidency, City Attorney David Chiu issued the following statement today discussing legal action his office has taken against the Federal Administration to protect San Francisco’s residents, policies, and funding. In the last year, the City Attorney’s Office has filed 14 lawsuits against the Federal Administration, submitted amicus briefs in 20 additional lawsuits against the Federal Administration, registered 19 comments in federal rulemaking, and preserved billions of dollars in federal funding to San Francisco.

“The last year has been a dark and frightening time for many Americans, but San Francisco remains committed to its values and will defend the rule of law in court,” said City Attorney Chiu. “We have sued the Federal Administration 14 times over the last year, and in the process, preserved billions of dollars in federal funding for San Francisco. Working alongside cities and counties across the country, we have seen many early wins in the lower courts. We have stood up for our immigrant communities and pushed back against the Federal Administration’s attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion. We restored thousands of datasets and websites that health care practitioners depend on to keep our communities healthy. We protected funding for public safety, counterterrorism efforts, and emergency planning, as well as for critical housing, health care, and infrastructure programs. My office will not back down and will continue to go to court to protect San Francisco.”

The City Attorney’s Office has sued the federal administration 14 times within the last year. The matters at issue are:

• Birthright Citizenship—This lawsuit seeks to block the President’s unconstitutional Executive Order attempting to end birthright citizenship. The Executive Order directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and over 150 years of settled constitutional law, including the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. District courts in this litigation and several similar cases issued preliminary injunctions blocking the Executive Order from taking effect. The case is State of New Jersey et al., v. Donald J. Trump et al., S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:25-cv-10139.

In separate litigation concerning birthright citizenship, Barbara v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and is expected to hear oral argument in Spring 2026.

• Sanctuary Cities—This lawsuit challenges Executive Orders and Administration actions that threaten to withhold all federal funding from cities and counties that do not use local resources for civil immigration enforcement. San Francisco receives approximately $3.7 billion annually in federal funding. San Francisco led a coalition of 50 local governments in this litigation and secured two preliminary injunction orders at the District Court preventing the Federal Administration from categorically withholding all funding from sanctuary jurisdictions. The case is City and County of San Francisco, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al.,S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-cv-01350.
• Public Health Data—This lawsuit worked to preserve access to essential public health data that the Federal Administration attempted to erase. San Francisco and other Plaintiffs won this lawsuit in July 2025, and the District Court ordered the Federal Administration to restore the public health data at issue. All of the websites and datasets have been restored, and the case is complete. The case is Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 25-cv-322.
• AmeriCorps Funding—This lawsuit challenges the Federal Administration’s attempt to coerce the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and other AmeriCorps grantees to revise a previously executed grant agreement to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office is representing SFUSD, which has 44 AmeriCorps members who provide mentoring, counseling, and support to vulnerable students in SFUSD schools. Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction order preventing the Federal Administration from forcing SFUSD and other plaintiffs to comply with the illegal anti-DEI conditions. The case is San Francisco Unified School District, et al., v. AmeriCorps, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-02425.
• Dismantling of the Federal Government—This lawsuit seeks to reverse the Federal Administration’s unlawful mass dismantling and reorganization of the federal government without legislative authority. The District Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction order in favor of Plaintiffs, but those orders were later paused by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was remanded back to the District Court. The case is AFGE v. Trump,S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-cv-03698.
• Illegal Conditions on Federal Grants—This lawsuit aims to block illegal grant conditions attempting to impose the President’s anti-DEI, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-abortion, and anti-immigrant policy preferences on grantees. The conditions demand that local governments submit to Trump ideology or give up billions in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funding. In total, San Francisco receives about $2.74 billion in funding from HUD, DOT, and HHS. Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction from the District Court stopping the Federal administration from imposing the illegal grant conditions. The case is Martin Luther King, Jr. County, et al., v. Scott Turner, et al.,S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 25-cv-00814.
• Counterterrorism Funding—This lawsuit challenges the Federal Administration’s unlawful freeze of Securing the Cities counterterrorism grant funding. San Francisco receives approximately $1.2 million annually from the Securing the Cities program to enhance the Bay Area’s ability to detect and prevent terrorist and nuclear attacks. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Federal Administration reversed course and released the much of the funding at issue, but continues to enforce a freeze on the purchase of nuclear and radiological detection equipment. City of Chicago, et al. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:25-cv-05462.
• Environmental Grant Programs—This proposed class action lawsuit challenges the unlawful termination of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental and Climate Justice Grant Program, which provides San Francisco with $21 million in funding. The District Court ruled in favor of the Federal Administration, but the Plaintiff coalition is currently appealing that decision. The case is Appalachian Voices, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al.,S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-01982.
• Emergency Preparedness Funding—This lawsuit challenges the Federal Administration’s attempt to impose unlawful and unrelated conditions on federal emergency and disaster preparedness grant funds. The grant conditions threatened $5.4 million in funds for San Francisco and an additional $30 million for Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI). Plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction order stopping Federal Government from enforcing the illegal grant conditions. The case is County of Santa Clara, et al., v. Noem, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 3:25-cv-08330.
• Public Housing Funds—This lawsuit challenges the Federal Administration’s attempt to impose unlawful conditions on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) public housing grants. The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office is representing San Francisco Housing Authority, which receives approximately $9 million annually from these grants. San Francisco obtained a preliminary injunction stopping the Federal Administration from imposing these illegal conditions. The case is Housing Authority of the County of San Diego, et al., v. Scott Turner, et al.,S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:25-cv-08859.
• Public Safety Funding—This lawsuit challenges the Federal Administration’s attempt to impose unlawful and unrelated conditions on U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) community policing grants. San Francisco received approximately $6.25 million that funds public safety efforts. San Francisco sought a preliminary injunction order and is awaiting a decision from the District Court. The case is City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.,S. Northern District Court for California, Case No. 3:25-cv-09277.
• Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program—This lawsuit challenges the U.S. Department of Education’s unlawful rule that threatens a bipartisan student debt relief program for Americans with careers in public service. The litigation was filed in November 2025 and has not yet had a hearing. The Department of Education’s rule does not become effective until July 1, 2026. The case is National Council of Nonprofits, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al., S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:25-cv-13242.
• Solar and Wind Energy Tax Credits—This lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) challenges its new tax credit rules that unfairly and illegally undermine wind and solar projects. The litigation was filed in December 2025 and has not yet had a hearing. The case is Oregon Environmental Council, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service of the United States, et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-04400.

In addition to acting as a Plaintiff in litigation, the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office has submitted amicus briefs, or “friend of the court” briefs, in 20 lawsuits challenging actions taken by the Federal Administration. These briefs addressed a wide array of illegal Federal Administration actions, including decisions to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles, rewrite patient eligibility criteria under the Affordable Care Act, revoke temporary protected status from immigrant families, issue Executive Orders threatening to defund transgender health care services, fire government employees en masse, halt offshore wind projects, and refuse distribution of SNAP benefits to vulnerable residents.

San Francisco has also participated in the federal rulemaking and comment process when Federal agencies propose new rules or regulations that would harm San Francisco. San Francisco submitted 19 comments in the last year, including expressing concern over the Federal Administration’s proposal to institute a new “public charge” rule, which was struck down by multiple courts during the first Trump Administration. A public charge rule would institute a wealth test for immigrants entering the United States or going through the naturalization process, and at the same time, dissuade immigrant communities from participating in civic life or public benefit programs.

Over the last year, San Francisco has worked with 96 other states and local jurisdictions in litigation against the Federal Administration. The City often partners with the County of Santa Clara and the Public Rights Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that works with local governments to protect civil rights.

See more information and updates on the City Attorney’s efforts to stand up for San Francisco’s funding and values.