Immigration tracker: Latest updates on ICE deportations, sanctuary cities and legal protections

Under San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance, local law enforcement and public agencies are barred from collaborating with ICE to detain or deport immigrants.

On Jan. 20, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to deny funding to so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. In response, City Attorney David Chiu filed a federal lawsuit against the order on Feb. 7., joined by several other cities and counties. These jurisdictions argue that sanctuary policies improve public safety by encouraging immigrants to report crimes without fear of deportation.

Trump, however, has doubled down on his attacks.

“No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country, and are being mocked all over the World.,” Trump wrote in an April 10 social media post. “Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!”

The next day, HUD said it would begin efforts to cut funding to sanctuary cities, arguing that no public dollars should benefit undocumented residents. It remains unclear how these cuts would be implemented. Local housing advocates told the San Francisco Public Press that such action could trigger a spike in homelessness.

But on April 24, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide injunction blocking the funding cuts. He ruled that the administration’s attempt to punish cities for limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement likely violates constitutional protections around state and local authority. The ruling marks a key legal setback for the White House’s broader effort to compel sanctuary jurisdictions to aid ICE operations.There are currently 13 sanctuary states and more than 200 sanctuary cities or counties across the U.S. A 2020 appeals court ruling allowed the federal government to withhold certain grants from non-cooperative states — but Orrick’s new ruling halts broader cuts, at least for now.

In one of its most controversial actions to date, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15 to target individuals allegedly tied to the Tren de Aragua gang, resulting in the rapid deportation of 238 Venezuelans to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador without due process. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the order the same day, and a federal judge temporarily blocked further deportations. The pause was upheld by an appeals court on March 28. But on April 7, the Supreme Court overturned the block in a 5-4 decision, saying the lawsuit had been filed in the wrong venue (Washington, D.C., instead of Texas). In a win for due process, however, the justices also ruled that detained immigrants must receive timely notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation through habeas corpus proceedings.

Now, new court rulings in Texas and New York have again blocked the government from removing additional Venezuelan migrants under the policy. A Texas judge halted the removal of any Venezuelans detained in the Southern District of Texas, citing the risk of irreparable harm. In New York, a judge blocked the deportation of two men held in Orange County after their attorneys argued they had fled persecution and were wrongly labeled as gang members.

On April 18, the Supreme Court again stepped in — this time ruling 7-2 to block the removal of a group of immigrants detained in North Texas under the Alien Enemies Act. Under the decision, the government cannot remove anyone from the group of detainees from the U.S., until a further order of the court. Later that day, the Trump administration agreed to not use the Alien Enemies Act, but requested the authority to remove the detainees under other laws.
Meanwhile, more than 230 Venezuelans deported in March remain imprisoned in El Salvador. Some families say many have no gang ties or criminal records and were targeted for unrelated tattoos. On April 21, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele offered to repatriate the deportees — if Venezuela agrees to release an equal number of political prisoners.

Four federal judges have temporarily blocked Trump’s executive order denying automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, would affect children of undocumented immigrants and many temporary visa holders.

The day after the order was issued, 22 Democratic-led states, two cities (including San Francisco), dozens of civil rights organizations, and several pregnant women filed lawsuits arguing the policy is unconstitutional. Federal courts in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Washington State have since issued nationwide injunctions, pausing the order while litigation proceeds.

On March 13, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the nationwide block and allow enforcement in select states. But on April 4, immigrant rights advocates and state attorneys general urged the justices to keep the nationwide pause in place, warning that partial implementation could trigger legal chaos and risk stripping citizenship from thousands of U.S.-born children.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on May 15.

On March 21, the Trump administration cut funding for a program that provided legal aid to unaccompanied minors, leaving thousands to represent themselves in court without an attorney. The cuts affected a network of legal aid groups that work through the Acacia Center for Justice, eliminating support for both direct legal services and attorney recruitment.

In response, 11 nonprofit legal organizations sued, arguing the cuts violated a 2008 anti-trafficking law that requires the government to ensure legal counsel for unaccompanied children “to the greatest extent practicable.” The lawsuit also cited the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s own rules, which commit to funding legal representation when resources are available.

On April 2, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted a temporary restraining order, restoring funding until April 16 while the case proceeds. She ruled that the sudden halt in funding raised serious legal questions and would leave many children, some too young to speak or deeply traumatized, unprotected in adversarial court proceedings.
Yet legal aid providers say they still haven’t received communication or funding from the federal government. The group leading the legal challenge said the administration has failed to comply with the court order, leaving clinics in limbo and forcing some to continue representing children without federal support.

The CHNV program, launched by the Biden administration in 2022, allowed immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to enter the U.S. legally for two years through a sponsorship-based parole process. Beneficiaries received temporary work permits and were expected to apply for longer-term protections like asylum.

The Trump administration ended the program on March 25 and gave recipients 30 days to leave the country or face arrest and deportation. On April 15, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the government from carrying out mass terminations of CHNV parole, saying each case would require individual review and justification. She wrote that stripping legal status from people who complied with DHS rules “undermines the rule of law.”

The ruling keeps current protections in place but does not reopen the program to new applicants. DHS officials say they will continue to pursue legal avenues to dismantle the policy, which they argue exceeded presidential authority.

The case remains ongoing, and the CHNV program is still in legal limbo.

As part of its push for mass deportations, the Trump administration has invoked the Alien Registration Act to launch a federal registry for undocumented immigrants. The policy requires affected individuals to provide DHS with their address and biometric data. Those who fail to comply could face arrest, up to 30 days in jail, or a $5,000 fine. Immigration attorneys warn that those who register could also be flagged for removal.

Immigrants who entered the country with a visa, have applied for work authorization or parole, or hold green cards are already considered “registered” and are not affected by this rule. However, the act also mandates that lawful permanent residents carry their green card at all times or risk detention, fines, or jail time.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from deporting immigrants to countries with which they have no prior connection, without advance notice or an opportunity to raise fear-based claims.

The ruling, issued March 29, came in response to a lawsuit filed by immigrants and immigrant rights advocates after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a Feb. 19 directive to fast-track the re-detention and removal of thousands of immigrants previously released from custody, even to countries they have no ties to.

Since January, the Trump administration has expanded agreements with Mexico and several Central American nations to accept deportees from other countries. Advocates warned that the ICE directive could result in immigrants being sent to unfamiliar or unsafe nations without the chance to seek protection from persecution or torture.

In his ruling to block the ICE directive, the judge emphasized that immigrants are entitled to due process under U.S. and international law. The restraining order will remain in effect until at least April 10, when the court is expected to hear arguments on a longer-term injunction.

On April 4, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that the deportation of one man — Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with a U.S. citizen wife and children — had been carried out without “legal basis.” She ordered the government to return him to the United States by April 7.

However, on April 7, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused that order, after the Trump administration argued the deadline was “absurdly short.” While Roberts briefly paused that order, the full Supreme Court ruled on April 11 that the U.S. must “facilitate” Abrego’s return and ensure his case is treated as if he had never been deported. The case now returns to the district court for further clarification.

Despite this, on April 14, the Trump administration said it was not obligated to enforce the order, and President Bukele of El Salvador publicly stated he would not repatriate Abrego Garcia.

The status of other migrants deported under the policy remains unknown.

On Jan. 21, the Trump administration rescinded previous guidelines that had discouraged immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, granting ICE agents broad discretion to operate in and around schools, churches, and hospitals.

Soon after, several religious groups filed a lawsuit challenging the policy. On Feb. 24, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking ICE from entering places of worship or targeting immigrants nearby without a warrant.
However, on April 11, a separate federal judge ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing ICE to resume enforcement operations in houses of worship — a major blow to religious organizations seeking to protect immigrant congregants.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from deporting immigrants to countries with which they have no prior connection, without advance notice or an opportunity to raise fear-based claims.

The ruling, issued March 29, came in response to a lawsuit filed by immigrants and immigrant rights advocates after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a Feb. 19 directive to fast-track the re-detention and removal of thousands of immigrants previously released from custody, even to countries they have no ties to.

Since January, the Trump administration has expanded agreements with Mexico and several Central American nations to accept deportees from other countries. Advocates warned that the ICE directive could result in immigrants being sent to unfamiliar or unsafe nations without the chance to seek protection from persecution or torture.

In his ruling to block the ICE directive, the judge emphasized that immigrants are entitled to due process under U.S. and international law. The restraining order will remain in effect until at least April 10, when the court is expected to hear arguments on a longer-term injunction.

On April 4, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that the deportation of one man — Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with a U.S. citizen wife and children — had been carried out without “legal basis.” She ordered the government to return him to the United States by April 7.

However, on April 7, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused that order, after the Trump administration argued the deadline was “absurdly short.” While Roberts briefly paused that order, the full Supreme Court ruled on April 11 that the U.S. must “facilitate” Abrego’s return and ensure his case is treated as if he had never been deported. The case now returns to the district court for further clarification.

Despite this, on April 14, the Trump administration said it was not obligated to enforce the order, and President Bukele of El Salvador publicly stated he would not repatriate Abrego Garcia.

The status of other migrants deported under the policy remains unknown.