- A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against Los Angeles, upholding the city’s sanctuary ordinance and local authority.
- Judge Olguin ruled the ordinance regulates city agents rather than directly interfering with federal immigration operations.
- The federal government has until July 3, 2026 to file an amended complaint in the case.
(LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA) — A U.S. District Court ruling on June 22, 2026 ended the Trump administration’s bid to force local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement under Ordinance No. 188441.
U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin dismissed the lawsuit, finding the federal government failed to show the Los Angeles sanctuary ordinance violated constitutional principles.
The case, United States of America v. City of Los Angeles et al., No. 2:25-cv-05917, was filed in the Central District of California on June 30, 2025.
It targeted the city’s Sanctuary City Ordinance, formally titled “Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement.”
Ordinance No. 188441 bars city employees from using municipal property, personnel, or resources to assist federal immigration operations.
It also prohibits sharing citizenship or immigration status data with federal authorities. The measure covers all city departments, not just law enforcement.
Judge Olguin ruled that the federal government failed to plausibly demonstrate the ordinance violated the Supremacy Clause or the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
The Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land. Intergovernmental immunity prevents states and localities from imposing direct burdens on the federal government.
Olguin found that neither doctrine applied because the ordinance “controls the actions of the City’s own agents and agencies” rather than directly regulating federal operations.
City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto welcomed the decision on the day of the ruling.
“This order reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources,” she said.
She added that the ordinance encourages victims and witnesses of crime to seek help from LAPD regardless of immigration status.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche reaffirmed the administration’s enforcement posture in a June 8, 2026 press release.
“Gaining U.S. citizenship is a privilege and under the steadfast leadership of President Trump, this Department of Justice maintains a zero-tolerance policy for the abuse of this process,” Blanche said.
He pledged continued coordination with interagency partners on enforcement.
On the same day, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin struck a similar tone.
“American citizenship is a privilege, and it must be earned honestly,” Mullin stated. “DHS will not stand idly by.”
At the time of the filing, former Attorney General Pamela Bondi delivered sharper remarks.
She called sanctuary policies “the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles.”
Bondi accused jurisdictions like Los Angeles of undermining law enforcement at every level.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Case name | United States of America v. City of Los Angeles et al. |
| Case number | No. 2:25-cv-05917 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Central District of California |
| Presiding judge | Fernando M. Olguin |
| Date filed | June 30, 2025 |
| Date dismissed | June 22, 2026 |
| Subject ordinance | Ordinance No. 188441 |
| Deadline to amend | July 3, 2026 |
⚠️ Notice: The court granted the administration until July 3, 2026 to file an amended complaint. Outcomes remain uncertain and depend on what the federal government submits by that deadline.
The ordinance codifies a practice dating back to 1979.
Special Order 40, issued that year by the LAPD, prohibits officers from initiating contact with individuals solely to determine their immigration status.
The policy was designed to build trust between immigrant communities and local police.
The 2024 ordinance expanded those protections into formal municipal law, extending restrictions to all city departments and employees.
Filed during a period of civil unrest, the lawsuit followed deployments of federal troops to Los Angeles.
National Guard and Marines had been dispatched to quell protests in the city.
Bondi’s filing tied the ordinance to the disorder, a characterization the court did not adopt.
Dismissals in similar cases against Boston and Chicago signal a judicial pattern.
Federal courts have repeatedly rejected the administration’s attempts to mandate local law enforcement cooperation in mass deportation operations.
Each ruling has affirmed local authority over municipal resources.
| Date | Event | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1979 | LAPD issues Special Order 40 | Prohibits officers from initiating contact solely to check immigration status |
| 2024 | Los Angeles passes Ordinance No. 188441 | Formalizes sanctuary protections into municipal law |
| June 30, 2025 | DOJ files lawsuit | Filed during civil unrest; federal troops deployed in Los Angeles |
| June 8, 2026 | Blanche and Mullin reaffirm enforcement stance | Press statements ahead of ruling |
| June 22, 2026 | Judge Olguin dismisses lawsuit | Federal government failed to show Supremacy Clause violation |
| July 3, 2026 | Deadline to file amended complaint | Court granted permission to revise |
City officials argue the ruling preserves a critical public-safety framework.
Undocumented victims and witnesses can report crimes to LAPD without fear that their immigration status will be shared with ICE.
The ordinance prohibits city jails from holding individuals on ICE detainers beyond their scheduled release.
It also bars municipal employees from inquiring about a person’s immigration status.
The dismissal provides a temporary legal shield for the estimated hundreds of thousands of non-citizens living in Los Angeles.
The ordinance remains in effect while the administration weighs whether to file an amended complaint.
✅ What residents should know: Los Angeles residents can report crimes to LAPD without fear of immigration status disclosure. The ordinance bars city employees from sharing status information with federal authorities, and city jails will not hold individuals on ICE detainers beyond scheduled release dates.
Beyond public safety, the ruling affirms that Los Angeles need not divert municipal funds or police time to support federal civil immigration enforcement.
City officials say this preserves resources for local priorities rather than federal deportation efforts.
The decision reinforces the boundary between local governance and federal authority over immigration matters.
The court granted the administration until July 3, 2026 to file an amended complaint.
The dismissal does not foreclose future litigation.
Any revised filing must show that the ordinance directly burdens federal operations, not merely directs city employees.
Absent that showing, the legal theory that anchored the original complaint faces steep obstacles in the Central District of California.
This article discusses legal proceedings and immigration policy; information may affect individuals’ rights and status. Consult qualified legal counsel for personal circumstances.
