Federal courts have handed the Trump administration defeats in Illinois, New York, Colorado and Boston as judges reject the Justice Department’s legal arguments against sanctuary city ordinances. U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ 2024 sanctuary ordinance that prohibits municipal resources for immigration enforcement, and a federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against four New Jersey sanctuary cities, affecting Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken. These rulings establish important precedent for practitioners defending local immigration policies against federal preemption challenges.
What changed
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in June 2025, arguing the ordinance titled “Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement” sought to undermine federal immigration efforts and violated the Supremacy Clause. However, federal judges across multiple circuits have rejected this approach.
Olguin rejected the argument that the city unconstitutionally regulated the federal government, writing the ordinance “controls the actions of the city’s own agents and agencies” rather than restricting federal operations. U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, a Joe Biden appointee, granted a motion by the state of Illinois to dismiss the case after determining the United States lacks standing to sue over the sanctuary policies.
The ruling finds that the city’s policies are not expressly pre-empted by federal immigration law, allowing the ordinance to remain in place. Olguin rejected the administration’s intergovernmental-immunity, Supremacy Clause and preemption arguments. The judge determined the state’s policies are protected by the 10th Amendment, a significant limit on the federal government’s ability to compel local cooperation.
Why it matters
For immigration practitioners, these rulings clarify that local governments have broad authority to control how their own personnel and resources are deployed. Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said the ruling “reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources.”
The consistent pattern of dismissals across multiple jurisdictions signals that courts view the DOJ’s core legal theories as weak. The litigation largely deals with prohibitions blocking state or local officials from sharing certain information with the feds – including dates of release for undocumented immigrants who have been arrested or detained by local authorities, and other challenged policies instruct local authorities not to honor detainer agreements, requests from the feds that people in the custody of local authorities remain in detention after their release date so they can be picked up for immigration proceedings. If you represent clients in jurisdictions with sanctuary protections, these rulings provide stronger ground to argue that local non-cooperation does not expose individuals to federal detention absent a judicial warrant.
The DOJ is not foreclosed from proceeding: The federal government is permitted to file an amended complaint correcting all deficiencies in its suit by July 3, and independent city officials, such as Mayor Bass, have been dismissed from the suit with prejudice, leaving the city as the only defendant should the government refile its complaint.
Way forward
-
Review local sanctuary ordinances in your jurisdiction. Confirm which provisions have been upheld (information-sharing prohibitions, detainer limits, resource bars) and which remain subject to challenge on appeal.
-
Monitor appellate litigation. Although the case has been dismissed, legal observers expect continued litigation over sanctuary city policies, and the Justice Department could seek appellate review. Subscribe to appellate dockets in your circuit.
-
Use these rulings defensively in removal proceedings. When ICE attempts to detain a client based on a detainer issued in a sanctuary jurisdiction, cite the relevant district court ruling to argue the detainer lacks legal force and request release.
-
Clarify standing and federal authority with your local law enforcement partners. If you work with police departments or sheriffs’ offices, these rulings provide clearer guidance that local non-cooperation with ICE does not violate federal law.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice and does not substitute for consultation with a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction. Folaform is a software platform operated by a technology company, not a law firm. Immigration law and policy change frequently without notice; verify all information against the primary source materials linked above and consult current agency guidance before advising clients or filing any application.