On Sept. 29, in a closed session, the Palo Alto City Council unanimously voted to join a growing coalition of cities and counties that are challenging new federal grant requirements. Originally filed in May, the King County v. Turner lawsuit argues that conditions tied to executive orders on gender and diversity, cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and other policy issues unlawfully pressure local governments to conform in fear of losing critical funding.
In addition, on Sept. 30, the city joined County of Santa Clara v. Noem, a recent lawsuit filed by several California jurisdictions challenging the same conditions that threaten $350 million in funds for critical emergencies, infrastructure and upcoming global events.
A policy in the center of these lawsuits is “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.” Signed on April 28, Executive Order 14287 directs federal agencies to identify and penalize sanctuary jurisdictions, local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, by suspending or terminating federal grants and benefits. It also calls for legal action against jurisdictions deemed to be obstructing federal law.
Both lawsuits were filed as a response to the series of executive orders pressuring smaller governments to follow their guidelines, according to an Oct. 2 press release from the City of Palo Alto.
“The administration’s attempts to use grant funding as (a) cudgel to coerce states and local governments to abandon local policies and conform to the administration’s views is unlawful,” it said.
While Palo Alto is not officially labelled as a sanctuary city, it primarily follows state laws like the California Values Act, which limit local involvement in federal immigration enforcement and ensure public services are available to all residents regardless of immigration status. The city confirmed this commitment.
“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,” the city wrote in the same press release. “This long-established approach to local public services enhances the safety and wellbeing of all.”
These lawsuits carry local implications. Approximately $87 million in federal funding is at risk, endangering projects such as the Newell Road Bridge replacement, emergency preparedness and affordable housing developments. The city has also emphasized that they are joining these lawsuits at no monetary cost.
According to Assistant City Attorney Mark Vanni, Palo Alto’s decision to join the cases is about protecting its independence and ensuring fair access to federal funding.
“The Trump administration issued a lot of directives and took a lot of steps to use the federal grant giving program in a way to make cities and counties follow their rules,” he said. “And so we’re trying to preserve the status quo.”
He highlighted that the city’s end goal with the lawsuits is to continue operating under existing state and local policies without being penalized for them.
“Ultimately, we want to preserve our ability to ask for federal funds,” Vanni said.
