The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against New Jersey and Governor Mikie Sherrill, accusing the state of expanding its sanctuary policies and obstructing federal immigration enforcement through a new executive order. The case will test whether states can legally restrict federal immigration enforcement on state property.
What changed
The Trump Administration sued the State of New Jersey for its Executive Order No. 12 issued February 11, 2026, which further implemented New Jersey’s Safe Communities Act law that was passed January 20, 2026. The Executive Order prohibits federal immigration officers from using nonpublic areas of state-owned property and from using them as a staging area, processing location, or operations base to enforce civil immigration law without a judicial warrant.
The Justice Department lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Trenton, challenges Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s Feb. 11 executive order, which also bars the use of state property as a staging or processing area for immigration enforcement.
The Justice Department argued the order violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by discriminating against federal immigration authorities and interfering with Congress’ immigration powers. Additionally, the government alleges Governor Sherill’s press release regarding the Executive Order encourages citizens to monitor the activities of ICE.
On May 8, 2026, the state of New Jersey filed a motion to dismiss. The federal case is ongoing.
Why it matters
The outcome of this litigation will determine whether New Jersey’s restrictions on ICE access to state property remain enforceable. The Executive Order prohibits U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal immigration officials from conducting secure arrests of criminal illegal aliens inside nonpublic areas of state property, including state correctional facilities. If the government prevails, ICE will regain unrestricted access to state prisons, county jails, and courthouses.
For deportation defense practitioners representing clients detained in New Jersey state facilities, this lawsuit affects:
- Custody status and timing: Whether clients in state custody are insulated from federal civil immigration enforcement during their state incarceration
- Collateral exposure: Whether clients facing both state and immigration consequences can negotiate state sentences with knowledge that federal agents cannot access them at state facilities
- Filing strategy: Whether bond hearings, stay-of-removal proceedings, or other federal immigration relief should account for the availability (or unavailability) of federal agents in state institutions
For practitioners advising immigrant clients in New Jersey more broadly, the case signals the state’s commitment to limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, even as the federal government legally challenges that stance.
Way forward
-
Monitor the docket — Follow the federal court case (U.S. v. State of New Jersey, District of New Jersey) for the state’s response to the DOJ complaint and any dispositive motions. Interim orders could signal how the court may rule on the constitutionality question.
-
Advise clients with current state custody — Explain that Executive Order No. 12 may not survive litigation and should not be relied upon as permanent protection. Clients should understand their ICE exposure separately from their state charges.
-
Document state facility detentions — If representing a client currently held in a New Jersey state facility under the executive order’s protections, preserve evidence of how the order was applied (dates ICE was denied access, any denials in writing, etc.). This may be relevant if the order is invalidated and ICE retroactively pursues the client.
-
Track state legislative response — Watch for any statutory codification of the executive order’s protections beyond Governor Sherrill’s executive authority. The Safe Communities Act itself (passed January 20, 2026) may offer a separate legal basis.
Disclaimer
Fola Immigration is a software company, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction to apply this information to your specific facts. Policy and litigation outcomes can change without notice. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and the official court docket before relying on it in client advice or filings.