Federal Litigation Between the U.S. Government and Sanctuary Jurisdictions

California Sued Department of Transportation Over Denial of Funding

(filed May 13, 2025) 

State of California et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation - States challenged the “Duffy Directive/Letter” (dated April 24, 2025) that requires all Department of Transportation (DOT) grant recipients to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement or risk losing their funding. On June 19, 2025, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of the DOT directive. On July 8, 2025, more states joined the lawsuit and amended their complaint. On November 4, 2025, the federal court issued a permanent injunction and granted the states summary judgment. The DOT is ordered to remove all the funding conditions requiring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement from all future agreements and issue a notice to grant recipients that they will not condition their funding on federal immigration enforcement cooperation. The government appealed the permanent injunction and summary judgment on January 2, 2026 to the First Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 26-1026). The government on January 13, 2026 decided to dismiss their own appeal. Currently, the permanent injunction and summary judgment stands against the government. 

California Sued Trump Over National Guard Deployment to Los Angeles

(filed June 9, 2025) 

Newsom et al. v. Donald Trump et al. – the state of California challenged the federal government on the unlawful action of deploying the California National Guard in the Los Angeles area in violation of the U.S. Constitution. On December 10, 2025, the district court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the return of the control of the California national guard to the California Governor and blocked further deployments.  Note that President Trump announced on December 31, 2025 that he was withdrawing the national guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland. The federal case is ongoing at the district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (note there are three cases pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals related to this case Nos. 25-3727, 25-5553, and 25-7781). Additionally, the federal court was also waiting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case Oregon v. Trump (Nos. 25-6268 and 25-7194), which is a similar companion case about the unlawful federal deployment in Oregon. Note the consolidated cases in Oregon v. Trump were dismissed by the Ninth Circuit on February 17, 2026 because the government voluntarily moved to dismiss. The federal case is ongoing pertaining to California. However, see Donald J. Trump v. Illinois, U.S. Supreme Court case No. 25A443, as the victory of this case will influence the outcome of these cases. 

Illinois and City of Chicago Sued Trump Administration Over National Guard Deployment

(filed October 6, 2025) 

State of Illinois et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. - Illinois and the City of Chicago challenged the government on the unlawful deployment of federal agents and the federalization and deployment of the Illinois and Texas National Guard. On October 9, 2025, the district court issued a temporary restraining order blocking the federalization and deployment of the Illinois national guard. However, the government appealed the order to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 16, 2025, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion to stay (stop) the district court’s temporary restraining order, holding that the Illinois National Guard can be federalized but not deployed. The government then appealed the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s order to the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal case is ongoing at the district court, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 23, 2025, in a major victory, the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 25A443) upheld the block and held that the government failed to identify a source of authority to federalize the national guard of Illinois. The decision can be found here. The state of Illinois and the government entered into negotiations. The government has moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction claiming the lawsuit is now moot since the Illinois national guard is no longer federalized and there are no other national guards remaining in Illinois.  

Illinois Sued FEMA for Immigration Enforcement Demands for Funding

(filed May 13, 2025) 

State of Illinois et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al. - States challenged the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding conditions requiring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. On July 2, 2025, an amended complaint was filed to add more states. On September 24, 2025, a federal court issued a permanent injunction against FEMA and granted the states summary judgment. As such, the conditions were set aside by the court and they cannot be enforced against the states. On October 14, 2025, the federal court granted the states’ motion to enforce because subsequent to the permanent injunction DHS grants included the same conditions and were forcing states to agree to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. On November 21, 2025, the government gave notice of its appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 25-2131). The federal case is ongoing. 

San Francisco and Others Sued Federal Government Over Executive Orders

(filed February 7, 2025) 

City and County of SF, et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. – San Francisco sued the Trump Administration over its executive orders on immigration enforcement and defunding sanctuary jurisdictions. On April 24, 2025, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of certain sections of the President’s Executive Orders 14159 (“Protecting the American People Against Invasion”) and 14218 (“Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders”) and its related agency directive - February 5, 2025 Attorney General Memorandum “Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directives.” On May 3, 2025, the federal court issued a further order clarifying its preliminary injunction. Subsequent to this order, the federal court again had to clarify in an order its preliminary injunction on May 9, 2025 because the administration issued a new executive order (Executive Order 14287) that repackaged the same threats of withholding funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. The government has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 25-3889).

A second complaint adding more cities and counties was filed and a second preliminary injunction was granted, which also clarified that the injunction also blocked the coercive funding conditions regarding immigration enforcement that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed on certain grants. On January 30, 2026, the federal judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against Boston’s Trust Act

(filed September 4, 2025) 

U.S. v. City of Boston - The Trump Administration sued the City of Boston for their Trust Act that was passed in 2014 and has been amended (Bos., Mass., Code Ch. 11, § 1.9) and reaffirmed to strengthen their sanctuary law and the Boston Police Department’s refusal for honoring ICE immigration detainers. The City of Boston has requested the federal court to dismiss the case. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against California for Sanctuary Laws: No Secret Police Act and No Vigilantes Act

(filed November 17, 2025) 

U.S. v. State of California - The Trump Administration sued the state of California over two state laws passed in 2025, the No Secret Police Act (SB627) prohibiting law enforcement from wearing a mask, and the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) requiring law enforcement not uniformed to visibly display identification that includes the agency name and either a badge number or name of the officer. On February 9, 2025, the federal court held the No Secret Police Act (SB627) violated the Supremacy Clause because it does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state and therefore unlawfully discriminates against federal officers. However, the federal court did hold that federal officers can perform their duties without a mask. Additionally, the federal court upheld the No Vigilantes Act (SB805), finding the Act does not discriminate against the federal government and does not regulate the federal government. The government requested a stay of the order, and the court stayed the order until February 19, 2026. The government filed an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal and a request for temporary administrative injunction while they deliberate on the emergency motion for an injunction of the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) with the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-926). On February 19, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary administrative injunction meaning that California cannot apply or enforce the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) against federal officers until the Ninth Circuit rules on the emergency motion for an injunction. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against Colorado and Denver Sanctuary Laws

(filed May 2, 2025) 

U.S. v. State of Colorado, County and City of Denver - The Trump Administration sued the state of Colorado and the city/county of Denver for state laws and local ordinances that limited ICE detainers and use of resources for immigration enforcement (amendments to state statutes, Denver Executive Order No. 142 and Denver ordinance No. 940-17 revising municipal codes). The federal government claims these statutes and ordinances are preempted by federal law and in violation of 8 USC 1373. The state, the county, and the city requested the federal judge to dismiss the case. On March 31, 2026, the federal court granted the motion to dismiss and ordered the case to be closed. The federal court generally held that the “the Constitution does not confer upon Congress the power to compel states to implement federal regulatory programs” and that state implementation and enforcement of federal immigration schemes are “necessarily voluntary” and to hold otherwise would impose a financial burden on state and local governments. The government may appeal the federal court’s decision. 

Suit Against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County Sanctuary Laws

(filed February 6, 2025) 

U.S. v. State of Illinois, Cook County, City of Chicago - The Trump Administration sued to prohibit the enforcement of several state and local laws, such as Illinois’ Way Forward Act, TRUST Act, Chicago’s Welcoming City Act, and Cook County Ordinance 11-O-73. On July 25, 2025, a federal court dismissed the case based on standing issues, and also held that 8 USC 1373 has no preemptive power. This case is currently being appealed at the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 25-2904).

Suit Against Illinois, the Governor and Attorney General over Illinois Bivens Act and Court Access, Safety and Participation Act (CASPA)

U.S. v. State of Illinois, et al. - The Trump Administration sued Illinois, the Governor, and the Attorney General for their Illinois Public Act 1004-0440 enacted December 9, 2025. The Act has key provisions, the Illinois Bivens Act and CAPA. The Illinois Bivens Act creates a private cause of action (the right to sue) against federal law enforcement officials for civil liability and punitive damages. CASPA prohibits civil arrests on state courthouse grounds and within 1,000 feet of a state courthouse. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against Los Angeles Sanctuary Policy

(filed June 30, 2025)

U.S. v. City of Los Angeles -  The Trump Administration sued the City of Los Angeles for their 2024 sanctuary city law (Order No. 188441). The City of Los Angeles has requested the federal judge to dismiss the case. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against New Jersey Over Executive Order

(filed February 23, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of New Jersey - The Trump Administration sued the State of New Jersey for its Executive Order No. 12 issued February 11, 2026, which further implemented New Jersey’s Safe Communities Act law that was passed January 20, 2026. The Executive Order prohibits federal immigration officers from using nonpublic areas of state-owned property and from using them as a staging area, processing location, or operations base to enforce civil immigration law without a judicial warrant. Additionally, the government alleges Governor Sherill’s press release regarding the Executive Order encourages citizens to monitor the activities of ICE. The federal case is ongoing.

Suit Against New York City Ordinance

(filed July 24, 2025) 

U.S. v. City of New York - The Trump Administration sued New York City and the NY Police Department for its sanctuary laws and policies (N.Y.C. Administrative Code §§ 9-131; 14-154; 9-205; 10-178 and NY Police Department Operations Order No. 4). New York City requested the federal court to dismiss the case. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against NY Executive Orders and Courthouse Arrests Law

(filed June 12, 2025) 

U.S. v. State of New York - The Trump Administration sued New York for its Protect Our Courts Act (POCA), which prohibits civil immigration arrests at or near New York state courthouses and Executive Orders 170 and 170.1. On November 17, 2025, a federal court dismissed the case by the government against New York, because the Executive Orders by the Governor were not federally preempted by the Supremacy clause nor 8 USC 1373 and New York’s POCA was also not preempted because the state may refuse to assist federal civil-immigration arrests in its courthouses. On January 15, 2026, the government gave its notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Suit Against Rochester NY City Sanctuary Policy

(filed April 24, 2025) 

U.S. v. City of Rochester - The Trump Administration sued the City of Rochester for its sanctuary resolution (2017-5) and the Rochester Police Department’s implementation of the resolution, specifically General Order 502 and Training Bulletin No. P-75-17. On November 13, 2025, a federal court dismissed the case because the government failed to state what relief it was seeking in federal court and also because the City of Rochester amended their sanctuary laws and the government failed to address the amendments. The amendments in 2025 enhanced/improved the City of Rochester’s 2017 sanctuary policies. However, the government had until December 19, 2025 to amend its complaint. On December 19, 2025, the government amended their complaint and alleged that the City of Rochester doubled down on their sanctuary laws and policies because the police department issued an order (General Order 125 title “Mutual Aid”) stating that all emergency calls for assistance must be approved by supervision and amended a general order (General Order 502) that details instructions on how to respond to calls from DHS. Also, the city of Rochester adopted a new ordinance (No. 2025-283 amending the municipal code relating to their sanctuary policies). The City of Rochester has requested the federal judge to dismiss the case. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against State of Connecticut and the City of New Haven Over Sanctuary Policies

(filed April 13, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of Connecticut, et. al. - The Trump Administration sued the State of Connecticut, the Governor, the Attorney General, the City of New Haven and its mayor. The government is challenging provisions of the Connecticut Trust Act (Conn. Stat. § 54-192h)(2013) and its policy guidance (March 26, 2026) and provisions of New Haven’s Executive Order §§ III(2)-(8))(July 23, 2020). Connecticut’s Trust Act generally prohibits complying with a detainer unless it is accompanied by a judicial warrant or if the person has been convicted of a violation of certain enumerated crimes, prohibits disclosing non-public information without a judicial warrant, among other things. New Haven’s Executive Order prohibits city officers and employees from disclosing confidential information without the consent of the person, prohibits inquiring into a person’s immigration status, prohibits the use of city resources to investigate, enforce or assist with federal immigration enforcement, among other things. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against Various Cities in New Jersey Sanctuary Policies

(filed May 22, 2025) 

U.S. v. City of Newark, City of Jersey City, City of Paterson, City of Hoboken - The Trump Administration sued over four New Jersey city policies that limit local assistance in immigration enforcement (Newark Executive Order MEO 17-001, Newark Police Division General Order 19-01, Jersey City Executive Order 2017-003, Paterson Police Department Standard Operating Procedures, and Hoboken’s Executive Order Declaring Hoboken a Fair and Welcoming City). The cities have requested the federal judge to dismiss the case. The federal case is ongoing.

Suit Against Washtenaw County, Michigan Sanctuary Policies

U.S. v. County of Washtenaw Michigan, et. al. - The Trump Administration sued the County of Washtenaw, the County’s sheriff, and the County’s prosecutor’s office. The government is challenging the Sheriff’s Office General Order 1.14 (January 20, 2025) that generally does not inquire about a person’s immigration status, will not honor detainers, and will not use the sheriff’s office resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Additionally, the government is challenging the prosecutor’s office directive 2021-12 (February 24, 2021) that generally does not inquire into a defendant's immigration status and encourages the consideration of mitigating circumstances to avoid immigration consequences for a defendant. Lastly, the government is challenging Washtenaw County’s resolution, A Resolution Opposing the Use of County Buildings and Face Coverings by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Officers, Customs and Border Protection Officers, or their Contractors During Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities in Washtenaw County (Jan. 21, 2026), which prohibits federal immigration officers from entering county-owned property unless required by a judicial warrant. The federal case is ongoing.