(NEW JERSEY) The Trump administration’s legal fight against New Jersey cities’ sanctuary policies is moving ahead even as a federal government shutdown drags on, with lawsuits from the Department of Justice continuing to press claims that local limits on cooperation with immigration enforcement violate the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause. Federal filings name more than a dozen jurisdictions around the country, including cities in New Jersey, and seek to force policy reversals or open the door to cutting off funds if local officials refuse to help federal immigration authorities.
At the center of the dispute are local rules that restrict arrests by immigration officers at or near courthouses unless agents have a warrant signed by a judge, and broader policies that limit when local police and jails share information or hold people at the request of federal immigration agents. The Department of Justice argues these sanctuary policies obstruct federal operations and run afoul of the supremacy clause, which establishes that federal law prevails in conflicts with state or local measures. Civil rights groups and local leaders say the Constitution also bars Washington from commandeering local resources to carry out federal tasks and that many of the administration’s threats far exceed what the law allows.
The administration has filed suit against cities in New Jersey as part of a wider campaign that includes three executive orders directing the Department of Justice to pursue civil and criminal action against sanctuary jurisdictions and threatening to defund cities and counties that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. While a federal court has blocked the core funding threat for now, the government’s casework against New Jersey municipalities and other jurisdictions is active, and judges continue to weigh whether the executive orders and related policies can survive constitutional scrutiny.
A key ruling came on April 24, 2025, when Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the executive order designed to strip funding from sanctuary cities. In his order, he pointed to “budgetary uncertainty, potential violations of constitutional rights and the threat to public trust between local governments and their communities,” concluding that the order’s penalties could not proceed while the courts consider the merits. The injunction currently protects 16 jurisdictions that are part of the case, but hundreds of other cities and counties are not covered and remain at risk if the administration prevails or if protections are not extended.
The scale of the threatened cuts has alarmed local officials and service providers. The administration’s estimates put more than $10 billion in taxpayer dollars on the line across plaintiff cities and counties if the defunding order were to take effect. In San Francisco, where a leading hospital and trauma center serves about 1.5 million residents, local authorities say the city could lose more than $800 million in federal support, a blow that would reach far beyond immigration policy debates and cut into emergency care, public health programs, and social services. Lawyers for the cities argue that this is precisely why the spending clause of the Constitution limits how the federal government can attach conditions to funding and why the courts have repeatedly reined in attempts to punish jurisdictions by withholding broad categories of money.
For New Jersey, the legal stakes are both concrete and immediate. The Department of Justice’s suits target policies that have been adopted in several cities to keep courthouses open to victims and witnesses without the fear of arrest on civil immigration matters, and to ensure local police can maintain trust with immigrant residents. Supporters of these sanctuary policies say crime reporting drops when immigration agents make arrests at courthouses, while federal lawyers maintain such restrictions intrude on the execution of federal law. Amid this clash, the ACLU of New Jersey has rallied local officials and residents to defend their rules in court and in public statements.
“The Trump administration is targeting New Jersey cities for standing up for its residents and our constitutional rights. For decades, courts have held that the Constitution prevents the federal government from commandeering state and local resources for federal purposes, including immigration enforcement. This is yet another escalation of the Trump administration’s shameful campaign to intimidate states, cities, and elected officials who won’t do their bidding. Our state and our localities will not be complicit as the Trump administration tramples on the Constitution,” said Amol Sinha, executive director of the ACLU-NJ.
His remarks reflect a legal position that draws on a line of Supreme Court cases, often referred to as the anti-commandeering doctrine, grounded in the Tenth Amendment’s protections for state sovereignty. Civil liberties groups also cite the Fifth Amendment and the spending clause as anchors for their claims that the administration has overstepped.
The administration, led by President Donald Trump, has not backed down. On April 28, 2025, the White House issued Executive Order 14287, titled “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” which escalated efforts to identify and penalize sanctuary jurisdictions through new labeling and enforcement mechanisms. The court’s preliminary injunction has so far prevented the government from cutting existing funding based on those labels, but the Department of Justice has continued to file and press lawsuits, arguing that the supremacy clause demands uniform compliance with federal immigration law and that local policies cannot stand as obstacles to federal enforcement.
Even with active litigation and an ongoing shutdown constraining many federal operations, the Department of Justice has kept its sanctuary cases moving. A senior official described to the court how legal teams would continue motions and hearings already scheduled, while municipalities have been forced to devote staff and resources to the cases despite fiscal uncertainty tied to the budget impasse. For local governments, particularly in New Jersey, the timing is harsh: they face continuing obligations to provide services while also preparing for the possibility that major funding streams could be at risk depending on how the courts rule after the injunction phase.
One measure of the campaign’s impact is how few jurisdictions have changed course. The Department of Justice has identified only one city—Louisville, Kentucky—that abandoned its sanctuary policy in response to federal legal threats. Most other cities and counties have instead held their ground, citing community safety and constitutional concerns, and have revised ordinances to clarify lawful limits on cooperation without giving up their core protections. Lawyers for municipalities say that the lack of a single federal legal definition of a “sanctuary city” also complicates the landscape, leaving jurisdictions to defend policies that can differ widely but share a goal of limiting local involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
The lack of uniform definitions has played into the legal arguments as well. Cities and counties note that many of their rules simply set priorities for local policing and define when information can be shared, which they say is permitted under the Tenth Amendment and consistent with public safety. Federal lawyers counter that even if local officials cannot be commandeered, policies that affirmatively block information sharing or restrict access to public facilities like courthouses amount to obstruction and conflict with federal law under the supremacy clause. The result is a patchwork of challenges, with each city’s rules evaluated against the administration’s broad assertions of authority.
In the New Jersey cases, the courthouse-arrest policies have become a flashpoint. Local prosecutors and defense lawyers have argued that arrests by immigration officers near courtrooms discourage victims of domestic violence and witnesses to gang crimes from appearing, hampering prosecutions and fraying trust in the justice system. Federal filings insist that immigration agents must have access to public spaces and that requiring a judge’s signed warrant—a higher bar than the administrative warrants commonly used in civil immigration enforcement—impermissibly interferes with federal operations. Judge Orrick’s injunction does not directly resolve that conflict, but his emphasis on “budgetary uncertainty, potential violations of constitutional rights and the threat to public trust between local governments and their communities” signaled how courts may weigh broader public safety concerns alongside constitutional limits on executive power.
The legal terrain is also shaped by prior rulings that have clipped the executive branch’s ability to condition unrelated grants on immigration cooperation. Courts have repeatedly said that when Congress wants to set conditions on spending, it must do so clearly and within constitutional bounds, and that the executive branch cannot unilaterally add sweeping new conditions to programs already approved by lawmakers. That line of cases is central to why the preliminary injunction remains in place and why cities argue that threats to pull funding across multiple agencies and programs over immigration disputes exceed statutory authority.
While the lawsuits continue, advocacy groups in New Jersey and beyond have stepped up community outreach to explain what sanctuary policies do and do not cover. Without a single federal definition, the term often refers to limits on the use of local resources—such as jails and police officers—for civil immigration enforcement, rules that prevent holds on people without judicial warrants, and protections for accessing services regardless of immigration status. Supporters say these steps help ensure that all residents, including U.S. citizen family members, can seek emergency care, report crimes, enroll children in school, and appear in court. Opponents argue that such measures shield people from consequences of violating immigration laws and complicate federal efforts to remove those ordered deported.
New Jersey’s cities now find themselves balancing legal risk with local priorities. Municipal councils are conferring with attorneys on how to maintain courthouse access and policing strategies while minimizing exposure to federal claims. County executives have commissioned fiscal assessments to map which grants could be vulnerable if the injunction were lifted. Hospital systems are reviewing worst-case scenarios based on the San Francisco example, where a major trauma center stands to lose more than $800 million if the administration’s approach survives in court and broader funding cuts take hold.
The next steps in the litigation will hinge on how appellate courts read the interplay of the supremacy clause with anti-commandeering principles and spending limits. The Department of Justice is expected to push for narrower readings of anti-commandeering precedents, framing sanctuary policies as actionable obstacles to federal law rather than mere refusals to assist. Cities will continue to emphasize the constitutional prohibitions on federal coercion of local authorities and the practical harm to public safety when immigrant communities withdraw from contact with police and courts. The preliminary injunction gives breathing room, but it is not permanent, and it covers only the jurisdictions before the court at this stage.
As the shutdown grinds on, the legal calendar has not paused. Hearings remain on the books, and filings from both sides keep landing on dockets in New Jersey and elsewhere. Local leaders say they will keep their focus on keeping courthouses safe, protecting residents, and holding on to funds that pay for everything from road repairs to drug treatment programs. Federal officials insist they will continue to press their case that sanctuary policies cannot stand against federal law. For both sides, the stakes are measured not only in legal theories but also in dollars and public safety outcomes that will ripple through city budgets and neighborhoods if the courts side decisively one way or the other.
For official filings and updates from the federal government on these cases, readers can refer to the U.S. Department of Justice’s website at U.S. Department of Justice. As of October 28, 2025, the administration’s legal challenges against New Jersey and other sanctuary jurisdictions remain active. Preliminary injunctions have blocked parts of the enforcement effort, but the Department of Justice continues to pursue litigation focused on courthouse-arrest limits and funding sanctions. Local governments and advocacy organizations, including the ACLU-NJ, say they will defend their sanctuary policies and residents’ rights in court while monitoring the budget risks tied to the outcome.
This Article in a Nutshell
The Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against more than a dozen jurisdictions, including New Jersey cities, claiming sanctuary policies that restrict cooperation with immigration enforcement conflict with the federal supremacy clause. Despite a government shutdown, litigation continues and seeks policy reversals or funding sanctions. On April 24, 2025, Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of an executive order to defund sanctuary cities for 16 jurisdictions. Civil-rights groups invoke anti-commandeering and spending-clause limits as defenses, and the outcome could risk over $10 billion in federal funds.
