Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palo Alto council directs city attorney to join San Francisco lawsuit over federal immigration enforcement threats
Summary
After a closed session, Palo Alto’s City Council voted unanimously to have the city attorney join the City and County of San Francisco’s lawsuit challenging federal orders that threaten to withhold funds from jurisdictions limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; the action was taken under the California Values Act.
Palo Alto — After a closed-session discussion on potential litigation, the Palo Alto City Council unanimously directed the city attorney on May 27 to take steps to join the City and County of San Francisco in a federal lawsuit challenging recent federal executive actions that the city says threaten to withhold federal funds and seek enforcement against jurisdictions limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Council took the action under the framework of the California Values Act. The vote in closed session was 7–0.
Why it matters: The litigation aims to challenge federal administrative directives that seek to condition federal funds on local cooperation with immigration enforcement. Joining the San Francisco case aligns Palo Alto with other California jurisdictions that support sanctuary‑style local policies under state law.
What the council did
At the closed session’s public report, Mayor (reported) said: “The council has directed the city attorney to take necessary steps to join the case of City and County of San Francisco versus Trump... This challenges federal executive orders and administrative directives that threaten to withhold federal funds and initiate enforcement action against state and local government entities, which limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This is action taken in compliance with the California Values Act, and the vote was 7‑0.”
Speakers and attribution
The closed‑session report summarizing the council’s direction was read into the public record after the closed session; a formal public statement said the vote was unanimous. The meeting transcript does not include an extended public debate on this item, because the discussion occurred in closed session, but the public record includes the council’s direction and the vote tally.
Procedure and next steps
Under California law, councils may report limited information after closed session. The council’s public report names the case (City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25‑cv‑01350) and records the council’s instruction to the city attorney to join the challenge. The city attorney’s office will take the administrative and legal steps necessary to join as a plaintiff or as an amicus as appropriate.
Ending
The council’s unanimous vote signals alignment with other California cities in defending state law protections limiting collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. The city attorney’s filing approach and any public‑facing legal briefs will be published as the process moves forward.
