A judge in Massachusetts just handed President Donald Trump a win. 

Breitbart News reports that Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton sided with Trump in a case against two sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary cities are those that look to provide safe harbor to illegal aliens from the federal government. President Trump and his administration have been looking to put an end to such policies.

Federal Judge Nathaniel M Gorton made a ruling against the sanctuary cities of Chelsea & Somerville in Massachusetts,allowing Pres Donald Trump to proceed w his plan to cut off specific DOJ grants to those jurisdictions that do not comply w Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) pic.twitter.com/S4RtZhtzE7

— Sandy (@SD73660) October 3, 2025

Background

Breitbart News recalls how, earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order designed to combat sanctuary cities.

"Earlier this year, Trump signed two executive orders, both designed to get sanctuary cities to cooperate with ICE as they enforce federal immigration law — or risk losing certain federal funds," the outlet reports.

In response, some of these cities took the Trump administration to court.

Breitbart continues, "Soon after Trump signed the executive orders, the sanctuary cities of Chelsea and Somerville, Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit claiming they would suffer irreparable harm if the orders took effect."

Now, Trump just got a big win in the case.

The latest

The Boston Herald reports that Judge Gorton, this past week, ruled in the Trump administration's favor.

Per the outlet:

A federal judge in Massachusetts says claims from sanctuary cities that they face “imminent” funding risks because of their protections for immigrants are “speculative” and not enough for him to side with them in a court battle. Judge Nathaniel Gorton has denied a request from Somerville and Chelsea for the court to block the federal government from withholding funding due to their immigration policies, as their lawsuit against the Trump administration continues.

The outlet goes on to quote from the judge's decision.

He, in part, wrote:

This Court acknowledges the nuances and complex relationships that characterize the administration of municipalities and how they prioritize constituent services. Those complexities notwithstanding, the Cities still bear the burden of demonstrating to this Court how it is not just possible, but likely, that without injunctive relief, they will suffer imminent and irreparable harm. Plaintiffs have not done so. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction against defendants is DENIED.

The case will still proceed on the merits, as this was only a decision regarding preliminary relief.