President Donald Trump is taking aim at so-called “sanctuary” cities, but an Obama-appointed judge is standing in his way.

One of Trump’s many campaign promises was to secure the border, which meant protecting the country from both the outside and within its walls. As part of this push, the administration has heavily emphasized mass deportation efforts, tackling the illegal immigrant population state by state. Sanctuary cities, however, pose a different issue. Their policies make it harder for Trump’s team to conduct deportations. So, the president sought to strip 34 sanctuary cities and counties of their Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants — hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth — unless they choose to comply.

But U.S. District Judge William Orrick had other plans. His 15-page ruling came out on Friday, and as ABC News reported, it “grants a preliminary injunction in the administration’s effort to withhold funds and expands the number of cities that federal funds can’t be withheld from due to their ‘sanctuary’ status for undocumented immigrants.” Now, over 30 sanctuary cities housing illegal immigrants — including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Boston, and Chicago — are protected. This move is an extension to a previous decision Orrick made to protect sanctuary cities.

Orrick claimed that Trump’s orders, as well as “executive actions that have parroted them,” classify as “coercive,” threatening, and unconstitutional. The Trump administration is expected to appeal Orrick’s ruling. In the meantime, Attorney General Pam Bondi has not been silent on the issue of sanctuary cities refusing to cooperate with federal orders and the Trump administration’s plans to move forward with its immigration agenda.

“They better look out,” she warned during an interview with Fox News. “I sent 32 letters to mayors, multiple letters to these governors, and, you know, they say that we are trying to tell them how to do their jobs. Yeah, we are trying to tell them to keep America safe, and they need to do that.”

In a previous interview with Fox, Bondi also explained how, if cities don’t comply, the administration will “work with the other agencies to cut off federal funding, and we’ll send in law enforcement just like during the L.A. riots, and just like we’re doing … in Washington, D.C.” Ultimately, she stressed, “If they’re not going to keep their citizens safe, Donald Trump will keep them safe. That’s what this is all about … making America safe again. … That’s what we’re doing.”

This legal clash raises a deeper question: why do sanctuary cities remain so resolute in defying federal authority? David Closson, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, spoke to The Washington Stand about the “moral impulse” driving these policies. He explained that, from their worldview, officials in these cities are likely motivated by what they believe is “a desire to show compassion to those who are in difficult circumstances.”

However, Closson cautioned that this approach can be misguided. “Christians, from a biblical worldview, ought to care deeply about the vulnerable, and that includes illegal immigrants,” he said. “But sanctuary city policies often confuse compassion with lawlessness. God has given the state the responsibility of maintaining order and enforcing laws. When local governments openly defy immigration laws, they undermine the rule of law.”

Highlighting the consequences of this, Closson stated how “once the rule of law is weakened, the most vulnerable actually suffer the most.” He argued that “genuine compassion cannot come by rejecting the law. Rather, compassion and justice go hand-in-hand.” Citing Romans 13, he noted that Christians are called to respect lawful authority as part of God’s design for government.

Closson stressed the inherent dignity of all people, stating, “Every human being, regardless of legal status, is made in God’s image.” This belief compels Christians to show compassion to immigrants, including those in the country illegally, while still upholding the law. “Compassion does not erase the obligation to respect the law,” he said. “We must hold both truths together.”

In closing, Closson advocated for a balanced approach. “As Christians, we want to advocate for wise immigration reform that balances compassion with respect for the law. Churches have a role to share the gospel with everyone. But this must take place within a framework that does not encourage or excuse breaking the law.”