New Jersey Cities Urge Judge to Reject Trump Sanctuary Policy Suit

(NEW JERSEY, UNITED STATES) New Jersey cities are asking a federal judge to throw out a Trump administration lawsuit that aims to block their sanctuary city policies, arguing the federal government cannot force local police to carry out federal immigration enforcement. In filings this week, Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City, and Paterson said the case should be dismissed because it lacks legal standing and violates the Tenth Amendment, which protects state and local control over how police resources are used.

The lawsuit, filed in May 2025, claims these city rules interfere with federal immigration work and asks the court for an injunction to halt them. The local policies limit cooperation with immigration officers unless there is a judicial criminal warrant. City leaders say that approach balances public safety and community trust while respecting the line between federal and local roles.

Legal stakes and the cities’ arguments

Former New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, representing Newark and Hoboken, told the court the federal complaint fails on core constitutional grounds.

• His filing argues the federal government cannot commandeer local officers to enforce federal laws, including immigration enforcement.
• He points to New Jersey’s 2018 Immigrant Trust Directive, a statewide standard that restricts when police can assist immigration agents.
• According to the cities, their local rules mirror that directive by:
  • Allowing cooperation in specific, serious cases, and
  • Barring broad involvement in civil immigration actions.

Grewal cited multiple court rulings rejecting similar federal claims against sanctuary policies, including a 2020 decision that found the federal government overstepped by trying to punish jurisdictions limiting cooperation. Those rulings, he wrote, show a clear trend: localities may set policing priorities without fear of federal penalties tied to immigration policy.

• In the Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey, appeals judges have upheld the state’s approach.
• That reinforces the view that a local jurisdiction may decide how to use its staff and budgets without federal control.

City officials stress that nothing in their ordinances stops federal agents from doing their jobs. Rather, the policies say local police won’t hold people for immigration purposes or share certain information unless the request is backed by a judge. That stance reflects long-standing skepticism about civil “detainers” and similar requests.

For background on how federal detainers work, see the official page from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: ICE detainers.

Key point: The cities say their local policies preserve public safety by focusing local resources on crime prevention while protecting community trust; they do not block federal immigration authorities from acting.

Political response and public-safety claims

The mayors of all four cities, each a Democrat, have condemned the lawsuit and pledged to defend their residents.

• Newark Mayor Ras Baraka: Sanctuary policies make communities safer by building trust, encouraging victims and witnesses—especially immigrants—to report crimes without fear.
• Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh and Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla: Called the federal case politically driven and unconstitutional, saying it targets local judgment about public safety.

Local leaders argue their rules help officers focus on:
– Violent crime,
– Gun crimes, and
– Community policing.

They say when residents view police as partners—not agents of immigration enforcement—they are more likely to:
– Share tips,
– Testify, and
– Participate in investigations.

The cities reiterate their policies still allow cooperation when a judge orders it, aligning with the Immigrant Trust Directive and principles of due process.

Wider legal landscape

Nationwide, federal judges have blocked past efforts to tie city funding to immigration cooperation, including moves pushed during an earlier period under President Trump. Courts have repeatedly found the executive branch cannot add new grant conditions that Congress did not approve—especially when those conditions pressure localities to enforce federal law.

• A recent preliminary injunction shielded more than 30 cities from losing funds due to sanctuary status, signaling continued judicial resistance to broad penalties.
• New Jersey’s 2018 statewide policy has been upheld by the Third Circuit, and cities now argue their local rules simply implement that framework.

As of October 16, 2025, the matter remains unresolved. The cities are urging swift dismissal based on the Tenth Amendment and existing precedent.

Human impact and competing views

These disputes raise both constitutional and human questions.

• For immigrant families, the stakes are personal: a parent who fears an immigration arrest after a traffic stop may avoid driving a child to school or seeking medical care.
• Community groups say clear local boundaries help families feel safer seeking help, reporting abuse, and working with police.

Critics of sanctuary policies counter that reduced cooperation with federal officers risks releasing people who may pose threats. Courts have reframed this debate around constitutional lines:

• The federal government may enforce federal law, but it cannot force localities to do so with local staff and funds (the anti-commandeering principle).

How the case may proceed

Both sides are likely to argue about:
1. Standing — whether the federal government has shown real, traceable harm caused by the cities’ policies.
2. Public safety — competing evidence and claims about whether sanctuary policies help or harm safety.
3. Separation of powers / anti-commandeering — whether Washington can direct local police activities.

• The cities contend the suit does not demonstrate the factual harm required for standing and that the anti-commandeering rule bars federal control over local officers.
• The administration is expected to argue the cities obstruct immigration enforcement by withholding information and declining detainers.

The judge will weigh those claims against past rulings and the state’s directive.

Potential implications

• If the court dismisses the suit: similar jurisdictions nationwide could view the decision as confirmation that local limits on involvement with immigration enforcement remain lawful.
• If the case continues: it could revive disputes over:
  • Grant conditions,
  • Use of detainers, and
  • Access to information about people held in local jails.

Either outcome will carry consequences beyond New Jersey, shaping how U.S. cities define their roles where federal and local responsibilities intersect.

Final takeaway: The cities’ message is simple — let local police focus on crime, and let federal officers handle civil immigration matters, as the Constitution requires. The judge’s decision on whether to dismiss the case will determine the next chapter in this long-running fight over law, power, and community trust.