On June 24, 2026, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Justice had filed challenging policies that four New Jersey cities adopted restricting police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin in Newark marked the latest in a series of court losses for U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration in its efforts to challenge laws and policies adopted by so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” run by Democrats.
What changed
Judge Padin said the Justice Department’s case “has a fundamental flaw—it treats the challenged policies as though they operate in isolation.” They do not, she said, as under a statewide directive issued by New Jersey’s attorney general in 2008, law enforcement agencies, including those run by cities are restricted from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents beyond what the law requires. She said that as a result, the alleged harms the Justice Department claims could not be addressed through the lawsuit, as any ruling in its favor would not free municipal law enforcement officers to do anything the statewide policy forbids.
The Justice Department in a lawsuit filed in May 2025 argued the cities of Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City and Paterson are impeding federal immigration enforcement with policies that violate the U.S. Constitution and claimed the policies were preempted by federal law. The cities’ sanctuary ordinances restrict when local police can assist ICE with civil immigration enforcement and limit their cooperation with ICE detainer requests.
Why it matters
For practitioners advising clients in New Jersey’s four largest cities, this ruling provides major relief. The 2018 order — which restricts state and local police from aiding in civil immigration enforcement in most cases — was upheld by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021. Today’s decision confirms that those citywide sanctuary policies remain legally sound and cannot be struck down in isolation from the statewide directive.
The court’s reasoning also matters strategically: Judge Padin’s holding means the federal government faces a jurisdictional barrier to challenging municipal sanctuary policies in New Jersey, since any relief would be blocked by the statewide law that has already been upheld. This creates a significant hurdle for future DOJ litigation on the same ground.
For local governments and police departments in Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City, and Paterson, the dismissal means your sanctuary ordinances stay in place without legal jeopardy from this federal challenge. For practitioners representing immigrants in those cities, the landscape remains stable: local police cooperation with ICE remains limited to specific circumstances (chiefly when judicial warrants are involved).
Way forward
- Verify the scope of your local sanctuary policy against the statewide Immigrant Trust Directive; both instruments work together to limit police-ICE cooperation.
- Update your client advisories to reflect that this federal challenge is now closed and the policies are safe from this particular line of attack.
- Monitor for appeal or new litigation: The Trump administration has not signaled whether it will appeal Judge Padin’s decision; remain alert for any notices in related federal cases.
- Stay current on local enforcement protocols, especially around judicial versus administrative ICE warrants, which remain a key distinction under New Jersey law.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction before making decisions about sanctuary policies, local law enforcement cooperation, or any immigration matter. Immigration and criminal law change frequently, and judicial rulings can be appealed or overturned. Verify all information against the primary source documents and the latest guidance from USCIS, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and your state bar.