WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump’s threat this week to stop federal funding to both so-called “sanctuary” cities and the states where they’re located was greeted with disbelief by many states and cities since the administration has fared poorly on that issue in court.

“We will go to court within seconds, and we will win if he does this. It’s already proven unlawful. We’ve already won multiple times,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta told ABC News7 in San Francisco on Wednesday.

“Those are funds that belong to the people of Chicago, not the President,” Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement. There were similar reactions in Massachusetts and New York City.

Trump, speaking Tuesday to the Detroit Economic Club, said he would cut off “any payments” starting Feb. 1 “to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities, because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens.”

Trump was responding to those communities with policies against helping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrest people suspected of living illegally in the United States. States and cities reacting thus far have said it would be illegal for the Trump administration to withhold all federal funding, noting that judges have made that clear in recent rulings.

Cities and states with so-called sanctuary policies generally refuse to assist with immigration raids and refuse some requests for local jails to hold prisoners for deportation, depending on the crimes involved.

There’s no universal definition of a “sanctuary city,” but the U.S. Department of Justice published a list in August that includes 12 states, the District of Columbia, four counties and 18 cities. States either listed as sanctuary by themselves or as including one of the cities were: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The Trump administration is attempting to force more cooperation with immigration arrests. But it suffered a serious court reversal last July, when a federal judge dismissed a federal sanctuary policies case against Illinois, Chicago and surrounding Cook County.

The state and local policies reflect a “decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law — a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment,” U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins wrote. That order is now under appeal.

A California judge also issued a preliminary injunction in August stopping the Trump administration from cutting unrelated funding over sanctuary policies. The injunction covers 50 areas in 14 states. That case is also now on hold pending an appeal by the Trump administration.

In that case, U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that the Trump orders to stop funding over immigration policy were “coercive” and “intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com.