Key Takeaways
• Trump Administration sued Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County over sanctuary policies on February 6, 2025.
• The Illinois TRUST Act limits police cooperation with ICE unless there’s a valid federal warrant or criminal case.
• Key court decisions are pending that could set national legal precedents affecting other states’ sanctuary laws.
The legal fights over immigration enforcement in Chicago and throughout Illinois are at a turning point. Right now, courtrooms are making decisions that could change how the state, its largest city, and even individual counties work with federal officials on immigration. At the heart of it all is a federal lawsuit filed by the Trump Administration in February 2025. This lawsuit challenges the sanctuary policies set in Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago, putting a spotlight on how local and state governments set their own rules about immigration.
Federal Government Pushes Back Against Local Policies
On February 6, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice, acting under President Trump, sued the State of Illinois, Cook County, and the City of Chicago. The lawsuit claims these governments’ rules, known as sanctuary policies, break federal law by blocking the federal government’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement. The complaint specifically points to four local laws:
- The Illinois TRUST Act
– The Illinois Way Forward Act - Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance
- Cook County Ordinance 11-O73
Each of these laws aims to limit the ways local police and officials work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies. The Trump Administration says these sanctuary policies interfere with, and even discriminate against, federal immigration officers just as President Trump has declared a “national emergency” at the southern border. The lawsuit names several high-level officials as defendants, including Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Superintendent Larry Snelling of the Chicago Police, Toni Preckwinkle, the President of the Cook County Board, and Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart.
The main arguments from the federal government center around the idea that states and cities must not block the federal government from enforcing federal immigration law. President Trump’s team argues that the Illinois TRUST Act, along with the other targeted laws, make it much harder for ICE to do its job in finding and removing people living in the United States 🇺🇸 without proper documents.
Sanctuary Policies: What Do They Really Mean?
To make sense of the lawsuits, it helps to know what sanctuary policies are all about. Simply put, these are rules designed by states or local governments to limit their involvement in federal immigration enforcement. Cities and states set these policies for several reasons:
- They want undocumented people to feel safe reporting crimes to police.
- Officers and officials argue that focusing on local crimes, instead of immigration status, keeps everyone safer.
- Some policies are designed to keep local resources focused on community needs, not on federal deportation efforts.
The Illinois TRUST Act is a good example. This state law says that police and other state officials cannot stop, arrest, or detain people just because of suspected immigration status unless there is a valid federal warrant. However, it does allow cooperation with federal enforcement in criminal cases, not just immigration matters. As a result, the TRUST Act draws a clear line: help the federal government with actual crimes, but don’t make state officials do the work of ICE agents.
Chicago and Cook County both have their own versions of sanctuary policies. The Welcoming City Ordinance in Chicago and Cook County’s Ordinance 11-O73 go even further in banning city or county help with most forms of federal immigration enforcement.
Local and State Officials Stand Their Ground
On March 4, 2025, less than a month after the Trump Administration’s lawsuit, the State of Illinois, Cook County, and the City of Chicago filed motions to dismiss the case. In legal language, a “motion to dismiss” means they are asking the judge to throw out the lawsuit before it even goes to trial.
Their argument? The officials argue that federal law does not require local governments to help enforce immigration rules unless it involves criminal cases or there is a written federal order like a court warrant. Illinois and its local leaders say the U.S. Constitution lets states set their own priorities for policing, and federal immigration officials cannot force local police to work as immigration agents. The defense also points to the TRUST Act’s clear language allowing cooperation when people are wanted for actual crimes.
With these motions now before the judge, a decision is expected soon. As reported by VisaVerge.com, this outcome could have a wide-ranging impact not just in Illinois but in other places with similar sanctuary policies.
Civil Rights Groups Join the Fray
The fight over sanctuary policies is not just between state and federal governments. Civil rights groups like the ACLU of Illinois and the National Immigrant Justice Center have weighed in, too. On March 26, 2025, these groups filed a special legal brief—called an “amicus” brief—urging the judge to dismiss the federal lawsuit.
Their main points include:
- Sanctuary policies help improve public safety. When undocumented people can call the police without fear of being turned over to ICE, everyone is safer.
- Local law enforcement should be able to put resources toward fighting crime, not toward hunting down people just because of their immigration status.
- Strong local economies can grow when all residents can safely take part in community life without fear of being deported for minor issues.
The ACLU and the National Immigrant Justice Center also claim the Trump Administration’s lawsuit uses only “anecdotal” stories rather than hard data or peer-reviewed research. They stress that the Illinois TRUST Act actually lets local police help the federal government in criminal situations, which they say is a reasonable balance between respecting immigrants’ rights and keeping the public safe.
The Castañon Nava Settlement: Holding ICE Accountable
While the main lawsuit unfolds, another legal fight in Illinois is also worth watching. On March 17, 2025, lawyers from the National Immigrant Justice Center and the ACLU of Illinois asked a federal judge to enforce what’s known as the Castañon Nava settlement. This settlement is an agreement from a previous lawsuit, and it places clear limits on ICE.
The settlement, which will last until May 2025, covers six states: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kansas, Kentucky, and Missouri. It says that ICE officers in those states cannot arrest people without a valid judicial order, except in certain, narrow cases. This means ICE must have official, legal paperwork—not just a general request—to detain someone suspected of being in the United States 🇺🇸 without documents.
The latest court action involves 22 people, including a U.S. citizen, who claim ICE agents broke the rules and detained them without cause. The legal motion asks the judge to order their immediate release without requiring them to pay bond, and it requests new steps to make sure ICE follows the settlement terms in the future.
Key Case Highlights Illinois’ Tenant Rights for Immigrants
Another recent court decision in Illinois brought a different but related issue to light—how immigrants are protected when renting homes. On February 19, 2025, a Chicago landlord was required to pay more than $80,000 in damages after threatening to report a tenant to ICE during a fight over unpaid rent.
This case was the first ever brought under the Illinois Immigrant Tenant Protection Act, which bans landlords from using a person’s immigration status (or what they think the status might be) against them in housing disputes. Under this law, it does not matter if someone is undocumented or a citizen—landlords cannot threaten to call immigration authorities as a way to gain leverage or scare renters.
This ruling was seen as an important victory for tenants and immigrant rights groups. It sends a strong message that abuse or discrimination based on immigration status will not be tolerated in Illinois housing. As more people learn about their rights under laws like the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act, advocates hope that similar abuses will become less common.
What’s at Stake in the Pending Federal Lawsuit?
With a decision on the Trump Administration’s lawsuit expected soon, many people are watching to see what comes next. The stakes are high for several groups:
- Undocumented immigrants: If sanctuary policies are struck down, people living in Illinois, Chicago, or Cook County might face higher risks of arrest and deportation for simple police interactions, rather than serious crimes.
- Law enforcement: Local officials could lose the ability to set their own public safety priorities and might be forced to spend more resources cooperating with federal immigration officers.
- State and city governments: A loss could weaken the legal ground for state and local governments to push back against federal policies they see as unfair or too harsh.
- Other states and cities: The outcome could set a legal precedent other courts might follow, possibly leading to new challenges against sanctuary policies across the country.
Supporters of sanctuary policies argue that their approach keeps communities safe and helps people trust local police. Opponents, including the Trump Administration, say that states and cities should not be able to block the federal government from enforcing immigration rules. They argue that tougher measures are needed to stop what they call a national emergency at the border.
Different Views and Ongoing Debate
The strong feelings on both sides of the debate are not new. The Trump Administration has a history of confronting so-called sanctuary cities during both terms. Federal officials say local resistance stands in the way of much-needed enforcement, while state and city leaders in places like Illinois argue that their laws make all residents safer and promote public trust.
The legal arguments are likely to continue no matter what the judge decides. Civil rights groups and immigrant advocates are prepared to keep defending laws like the Illinois TRUST Act in higher courts if necessary. The federal government may also push the issue in other ways if it does not win in Illinois.
Meanwhile, local communities and police departments are left to wait and see what duties and limits they will face when it comes to federal immigration enforcement.
Looking at the Bigger Picture
These lawsuits and legal decisions are more than just technical arguments about state and federal powers. At their core, they are about how government should treat people who live in the United States 🇺🇸 without documents—whether local and state officials should help find and deport them, or focus mainly on public safety in their own communities.
Illinois, through the Illinois TRUST Act, has tried to walk a middle path—allowing help with federal criminal enforcement, but not with civil immigration issues. Other sanctuary policies in Chicago and Cook County reflect similar thinking. The legal outcome now pending may offer a blueprint for other areas looking to balance federal immigration law with the needs of local communities.
With court decisions looming, everyone from immigrants to landlords to police officers is looking for clarity. You can learn more about the current immigration landscape in Illinois and the rules that guide federal actions by visiting the official U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services page on immigration policies and enforcement.
As these important legal battles play out, one thing is clear: the outcome will shape not only the future of sanctuary policies in Illinois but also the direction of immigration enforcement and civil rights throughout the United States. The story of Illinois’ legal landscape shows how much is at stake when local, state, and federal officials clash over who decides the fate of people living and working in our communities.
Learn Today
Sanctuary Policies → Rules by states or cities limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented individuals from arrest or deportation.
Illinois TRUST Act → State law restricting police from detaining individuals for immigration status unless a valid federal warrant or criminal charge exists.
Motion to Dismiss → A legal request asking a judge to end a lawsuit before a trial by arguing it lacks legal grounds.
Amicus Brief → A document submitted by non-parties in a legal case to offer information or arguments relevant to the decision.
Castañon Nava Settlement → Legal agreement restricting ICE from arresting individuals in six states without a valid judicial warrant—protects civil rights until May 2025.
This Article in a Nutshell
Chicago and Illinois face pivotal lawsuits over sanctuary policies, with federal challenges raising big questions about local versus national immigration powers. Upcoming court decisions may determine if police must help ICE or focus on public safety. The results could shape policy and legal standards for communities nationwide, impacting many lives.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Illinois E-Verify Law still requires employer compliance despite DOJ lawsuit
• Illinois challenges new federal immigration enforcement funding rules
• Illinois Governor Pritzker to testify before Congress on immigration policy
• DHS Secretary Noem challenges Illinois Gov. Pritzker on sanctuary policies
• Illinois sees rise in U.S. citizenship applications amid enforcement fears
