Key Takeaways
• Justice Department filed lawsuits against Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago over sanctuary laws and workplace privacy rules in 2025.
• Illinois’ laws allegedly block information sharing with ICE, making immigration enforcement and use of E-Verify more difficult.
• Illinois defends that its laws are legal, focusing police on crime and maintaining community trust, citing bipartisan support.
The Justice Department has taken fresh legal steps against Illinois 🇺🇸 and several of its main local governments, arguing that the state’s sanctuary laws and new workplace rules are blocking the federal government’s work on immigration enforcement. At the heart of these lawsuits is a sharp disagreement between the federal government, which wants closer cooperation from states, and Illinois 🇺🇸 officials, who insist their rules follow federal law and help their law enforcement do its work more effectively.
Federal Lawsuits Target Illinois and Its Sanctuary Laws
In early 2025, the Department of Justice, under President Trump’s administration, filed multiple lawsuits against Illinois 🇺🇸, Cook County, and the city of Chicago. The main focus of these lawsuits is on several state and local rules known as “sanctuary laws”—which are designed to limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Among the laws being challenged are:
– The Illinois Way Forward Act
– The Illinois TRUST Act
– The Chicago Welcoming City Act
– Cook County Ordinance 11-O-73
The Justice Department’s main complaint is that these sanctuary laws make it much harder for federal immigration enforcement officials to do their jobs. These local rules, according to the federal government, block the sharing of certain information with authorities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This makes it more difficult to find and apprehend undocumented migrants, especially if they are arrested for other crimes.
On May 1, 2025, the Justice Department filed yet another lawsuit. This time, the focus was on a newer state law—Illinois’ 2024 workplace privacy law. Federal officials claim this law illegally discourages businesses from using E-Verify, the federal system that allows employers to check if workers have legal status to work in the country. The government views E-Verify as key in stopping employers from hiring people who are in the country without permission.
What the Federal Government Argues
The Justice Department’s main points are that:
– Illinois’ sanctuary laws get in the way of federal immigration enforcement and even discriminate against it.
– These laws keep local authorities from sharing key information with federal officials, slowing down or even stopping arrests of people who may be in the country without permission.
– The state’s new workplace privacy law puts extra requirements on employers who want to use E-Verify. By creating extra steps and sometimes extra rights for employees, the law could make businesses less likely to use E-Verify out of fear of legal trouble.
– Attorney General Pam Bondi expressed the federal stance clearly: “Any state that incentivizes illegal immigration and makes it harder for federal authorities to do their job will face legal consequences from this administration.”
Federal data shows that more than 13,000 undocumented migrants were arrested by immigration authorities in Illinois 🇺🇸 between 2016 and 2025. The Justice Department says these arrests highlight the state’s importance in national efforts to enforce immigration law.
Support for the federal government’s lawsuit has come from other states as well. A group of twenty-three state attorneys general, led by Ohio’s Dave Yost, filed an amicus brief (a document offered by someone not directly involved in a case, but who wants to give extra information to the court) supporting the federal challenge to Illinois’ sanctuary policies.
Illinois Defends Its Rules
Illinois 🇺🇸 officials have not backed down. Governor JB Pritzker and his office underline that the state’s main laws about immigration cooperation, like the Illinois TRUST Act, were passed with support from both major political parties and actually signed into law by a Republican governor. They argue these laws were written in a way that follows federal law.
State leaders say their main goal is to let police focus on fighting crime, rather than getting involved in routine immigration enforcement work. When it comes to dealing with dangerous criminals, state and local law enforcement still work together with federal authorities. For instance, the Cook County Sheriff’s office reports that it does cooperate with federal agents, provided they have proper arrest warrants and comply with all laws—local, state, and federal.
This approach, officials argue, helps local police maintain trust with immigrant communities. Many immigrants, regardless of their legal status, may be less likely to contact the police if they fear any interaction could lead to deportation. State and local leaders believe their approach keeps communities safer in the long run.
The Legal and Constitutional Background
The legal arguments in this case reach beyond Illinois 🇺🇸 and have been part of a much wider debate in the United States 🇺🇸 about how states and cities relate to federal immigration authorities. The Trump administration has targeted so-called “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” with lawsuits and threats to cut off federal funding, hoping to force local governments to work more closely with ICE.
A big legal question in these cases is the “anti-commandeering doctrine.” In simple words, this doctrine comes from U.S. Supreme Court decisions that say the federal government cannot force state or local police to help enforce federal law. States must follow federal law, but they do not have to actively enforce federal rules or use local resources to do so. This principle came up in a well-known 2018 case involving California 🇺🇸, when the Trump administration sued the state over similar sanctuary laws. The courts there mostly sided with California 🇺🇸, saying the federal government cannot tell state or local officials how to do their jobs, except in special cases.
In the Illinois 🇺🇸 case, this doctrine takes center stage. Illinois 🇺🇸 argues its laws do not block federal agents from working in the state or stop its police from helping federal authorities in certain cases—they just keep the state from going out of its way to aid immigration enforcement in everyday cases.
For readers who want to see the actual federal E-Verify system under discussion, it’s explained in more detail on the official E-Verify site.
Immediate Impacts: Who is Affected?
Immigrants
For immigrants living in Illinois 🇺🇸, especially those without legal status, the lawsuits create uncertainty. Many fear that if the federal government wins, local police could be more involved in immigration enforcement, making them less willing to call for help, report crimes, or take part in public life. This fear can also spill over to family members or neighbors who are in the country legally, but worry about being swept up in arrests or investigations.
Employers and Businesses
Illinois’ new workplace privacy law is also drawing attention from business owners. Many want to follow the law but are confused by the different rules at federal and state levels. The Justice Department’s lawsuit says that the Illinois 🇺🇸 law makes it too hard for them to use E-Verify, possibly leading to mistakes or legal risks. On the other hand, state officials say the law was designed to protect workers’ rights and prevent discrimination.
Law Enforcement
For the police, both state and local, the outcome could change how they work. Currently, many departments in Illinois 🇺🇸 focus on ordinary crime and leave routine immigration questions to federal agents. If courts rule in favor of the federal government, police departments may need to change their approach, possibly stretching thin resources or changing their relationship with local communities.
Advocates and Critics
People who support the federal government’s lawsuit argue that states like Illinois 🇺🇸 should help enforce immigration law for public safety and national security. They believe sanctuary policies create gaps that allow people who have committed crimes to avoid detection.
On the other side, defenders of sanctuary laws say local police are not trained or equipped to handle complex immigration matters. They argue that forcing local police into immigration enforcement could make crime victims more afraid to come forward, create mistrust, and hurt efforts to keep neighborhoods safe.
Longer-Term Questions and Broader Effects
The Illinois 🇺🇸 lawsuits are being closely watched for what they might mean nationwide. The courts will have to decide if and when states can limit their help with federal immigration enforcement. The outcome could affect not just Illinois 🇺🇸, but dozens of other states and cities with similar laws.
Here’s what observers are watching for:
– Will the courts make it harder or easier for states to choose not to help enforce federal immigration law?
– Could a court ruling in favor of the Justice Department encourage more states to drop their sanctuary laws?
– How will the balance between state and federal authority change after these decisions?
Some experts point out that conflicts over state and federal roles are not new. For centuries, states and the federal government have been in a push-pull battle over who decides everything from health care to education to law enforcement. Immigration, as shown in the Illinois 🇺🇸 lawsuits, is just the latest stage for these fights.
How the Lawsuit Process Works
The lawsuits against Illinois 🇺🇸 and its local governments are now being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. It can take months or even years for the courts to make final decisions. During this time, states and cities may keep following their current practices, unless a court orders them to stop.
People and groups not directly involved in the lawsuit, like the 23 state attorneys general who filed the amicus brief, can give their opinions to the court. This helps judges hear many different viewpoints.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, these legal battles can also have a “chilling effect”—meaning states or cities may put new rules on hold or be less likely to pass similar laws while the courts decide.
A Look Back: Similar Fights in Other States
Illinois 🇺🇸 is not the first state to be sued over sanctuary laws. In 2018, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California 🇺🇸, arguing that its own laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration officials were illegal. The courts there struck down one part of California 🇺🇸’s rules, but allowed most of the state’s laws to stand. That case, which was closely watched nationwide, set the stage for the current legal fight in Illinois 🇺🇸.
Other states have also joined the national debate:
– Some, like Florida and Texas, passed laws to require closer cooperation with ICE.
– Others, like New York and Oregon, adopted sanctuary-style rules similar to Illinois 🇺🇸.
– The federal government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, has taken different approaches—at times pushing for more or less cooperation.
What Comes Next?
The outcome of these lawsuits is hard to predict. The courts will weigh arguments from both sides, look at how past cases were decided, and consider the balance of state and federal power.
For now, Illinois 🇺🇸’s laws remain in force. Businesses, immigrants, and law enforcement agencies must keep following both state and federal rules, doing their best to comply with both. Any big changes will depend on what the courts decide.
For those who want to stay updated, official case filings and more information on immigration law can be found on the U.S. Department of Justice website.
Summary
- The Justice Department is suing Illinois 🇺🇸, Cook County, and Chicago over their sanctuary laws and workplace privacy rules.
- The federal government argues these laws block immigration enforcement.
- Illinois 🇺🇸 officials say their laws are legal and help police focus on public safety and trust in the community.
- The lawsuits raise big questions about the limits of federal and state powers, especially in immigration enforcement.
- People affected include immigrants, businesses, police, and advocates on both sides.
- The case will likely set an example for future battles over sanctuary laws and state-federal cooperation across the United States 🇺🇸.
As the court process continues, all eyes are on how these conflicts over sanctuary laws in Illinois 🇺🇸 and the Justice Department’s actions will shape immigration law in the years to come.
Learn Today
Sanctuary Laws → Local or state policies limiting cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration enforcement agencies like ICE.
E-Verify → A federal online system for employers to check if workers are authorized to work legally in the United States.
Anti-Commandeering Doctrine → A legal principle preventing the federal government from compelling states to enforce federal laws.
Amicus Brief → A document submitted to a court by people not party to a case, offering additional legal perspectives or information.
Illinois TRUST Act → A state law restricting when Illinois law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
This Article in a Nutshell
Federal lawsuits against Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago challenge sanctuary laws and a workplace privacy law. The Justice Department claims these policies obstruct immigration enforcement and E-Verify use. Illinois maintains its laws enhance public safety and trust. The outcome may impact similar laws nationwide and shape future state-federal immigration cooperation.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Immigrants Drive Growth in Miami-Dade County and Illinois, Says Report
• Immigration Group Got $63 Million in Illinois Tax Funds in Just 7 Months
• ICE Arrests Raise Questions About Gaps in Illinois TRUST Act Protections
• Trump Administration Sues Illinois Over Immigration Law Dispute
• ICE Agents Arrest 107 Illegal Immigrants in Illinois Operation
