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

Suit Against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County Over 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).

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). The preliminary injunction orders are still in force pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

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 State of New York Sanctuary Over DMV Policy

(filed February 12, 2025)

U.S. v. State of New York, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of NY, the Governor, NY Attorney general, and the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles for its 2019 Vehicle and Traffic Law § 201.12 (known as the Green Light Law) and its amendments from 2020 that prohibits sharing records with ICE and CBP (it does not include a restriction on sharing citizenship and immigration status but does limit sharing information like place of birth and country of origin), requires notice if information is requested of a person, and requires non-use for civil immigration enforcement purposes certification of those who have access to records. The government argued that the law is preempted by federal immigration law, impermissibly regulates the federal government, and impermissibly discriminates against the federal government. On December 23, 2025, a federal court granted the state of NY’s motion to dismiss since 1) the law only prohibits inquiry by state officials regarding the citizenship or immigration status of standard-license applicants, 2) courts have consistently upheld similar information-sharing restrictions, 3) the possibility of frustrating federal enforcement priorities “is not enough to provide a basis for preemption,” 4) the law allows sharing through a lawful court order or judicial warrant, and 5) the law does not provide more favorable treatment to any actors that are similarly situated to the federal government and the law provides disclosure to the federal government in certain situations. In its decision, the federal court rejected the government’s interpretation that the term “regarding” in 8 USC § 1373 includes all matters relating to citizenship or immigration status. On February 20, 2026, the government appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 26-387). The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against City of Rochester Over Sanctuary Law

(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 Colorado and Denver Over 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 appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 26-1214).

California and Others 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. 

Illinois and Others 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, after the permanent injunction, DHS continued to include the same conditions in its grants, thereby forcing states to agree to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The government also added a triggering clause that if the conditions were stayed, vacated, or extinguished, then the conditions would immediately take effect. On November 21, 2025, the government gave notice of its appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 25-2131). The federal court case and appeal is ongoing.  

Note shortly after the states won summary judgment; the government reduced funding awards to these states, reduced the period of performance, and added a population certification. The states sued in Illinois v. Noem. On December 22, 2025, the federal court granted the states’ motion for summary judgment. The government appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, but the government voluntarily dismissed the appeal on May 5, 2026.  

However, note that on July 23, 2026, the same states sued DHS/FEMA again, in Illinois v. FEMA (2026), challenging the same conditions that were added in fiscal year 2025 and new conditions that were added. This federal case is also ongoing.  

Suit Against Various Cities in New Jersey Over 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. On June 24, 2026, the federal court dismissed the government’s complaint without prejudice because the government failed to establish standing, meaning it did not adequately allege an injury that the court could redress. The court gave the government forty-five days to amend its complaint. The federal court focused its decision on standing, not the legality of the sanctuary policies. The state of New Jersey has a statewide Immigrant Trust Directive that limits how local law enforcement may cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Even if the court struck down the cities’ policies, the statewide directive would still prohibit much of the same conduct. Therefore, there could not be a remedy for the government’s alleged injury. The government has not filed an amended complaint.

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. 

Suit Against New York Over 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 Los Angeles Over Sanctuary Law

(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 (Ordinance No. 188441). The City of Los Angeles has requested the federal judge to dismiss the case. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against New York City Over Sanctuary Laws and Policies

(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 City of Boston Over Sanctuary Law

(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. On May 28, 2026, the court dismissed the government’s complaint without prejudice because the government failed to establish standing, meaning it did not adequately allege an injury that the court could redress. The court held that even if the ordinance were enjoined, Massachusetts law independently prohibits local officers from honoring ICE detainers, so the requested relief would not redress the government’s injuries. The court also found that the Trust Act’s information-sharing provisions (regarding information about a person’s release date and time and limited personal identifying information) do not conflict with 8 USC §§ 1373, 1644 because the ordinance preserves compliance with those statutes. On July 29, 2026, the government filed an appeal with the First Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 26-1852). The federal case is ongoing.

Suit Against State of Minnesota, Certain Cities, and County Over Sanctuary Laws and Policies

(filed September 29, 2025)

U.S. v. State of Minnesota, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Attorney General, and the Sheriff of Hennepin County over 1) an advisory opinion (Advisory Opinion 3a-20250206) by the Minnesota Attorney General interpreting the Minnesota Constitution as prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from arresting and detaining people pursuant to immigration detainers, 2) provisions of Minnesota Statute § 171.12 that requires certification that data regarding a noncompliant driver’s license or identification card will not be used for civil immigration enforcement purposes before the Department of Transportation shares that information and provides the sharing or disseminating of data regarding persons “who have applied for or been issued a noncompliant driver’s license or identification card that are not immigration status data to a government entity...or federal government entity that does not enforce immigration laws,” among other things, 3) provisions of the Minneapolis Code of City Ordinances Title 2, Chapter 19 that prohibits any law enforcement action for the purpose of identifying undocumented people or verifying immigration status, among other things, 4) provisions of the St. Paul Code of Ordinances Part III, Title III, Chapter 44 that prohibits maintaining or recording immigration status, among other things, and 5) Hennepin County’s Sheriff’s Administrative Directive 21-02 that prohibits holding a person and notifying DHS/ICE of the person’s admittance or release pursuant to an immigration detainer absent a judicial warrant. Various motions to dismiss have been filed claiming the federal government has failed to state a claim. On July 20, 2026, the court dismissed the government’s complaint. The court held that some claims failed for lack of standing because the alleged injuries were not traceable to certain defendants, while the remaining claims failed on the merits because the government’s interpretation of federal immigration law would violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine and the challenged laws did not unlawfully discriminate against the government. Accordingly, the court dismissed all of the government’s claims, with some dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and the remainder with prejudice on the merits. The government may appeal the decision.

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. 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. The state of Illinois (and others) opposed the dismissal because the federalization and deployment orders that started the case have not been rescinded, and the temporary restraining order, which halted the unlawful deployment would expire upon dismissal. Therefore, they sought a permanent injunction to prevent future unlawful deployments. On April 21, 2026, the federal court held the case is moot and dismissed the case with prejudice. There are no new updates in these cases because each case has reached a final disposition, and no further proceedings are currently pending.

Suit Against California Over 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 could not apply or enforce the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) against federal officers until the Ninth Circuit ruled on the emergency motion for an injunction. On April 22, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction pending appeal in favor of the government because section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation.” Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) required any non-uniformed federal law enforcement officer operating in California, with narrow exceptions, to visibly display identification while performing federal law enforcement duties, and officers who violated the law would have faced criminal prosecution by California (misdemeanor offense). Note that section 2, which requires law enforcement agencies to adopt and post a policy on the visible identification of officers is not enjoined because the lower federal court held the government lacked standing on this particular issue and the government did not contest that ruling in its motion for a preliminary injunction. The federal case is ongoing.

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

(filed December 22, 2025)

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 CASPA. 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. On February 23, 2026, the state of Illinois filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On March 6, 2026, the federal court in an order held the motion is not yet ripe. However, after this order a hearing was scheduled on the motion. 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. On May 8, 2026, the state of New Jersey filed a motion to dismiss. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against Washtenaw County, Michigan Over Sanctuary Policies

(filed April 9, 2026)

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. On June 17, 2026, the county and others filed a motion to dismiss the government’s complaint. The federal case is ongoing.

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

(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 state of Connecticut and the City of New Haven have filed motions to dismiss. On July 27, 2026, the government moved for summary judgment. The federal case is ongoing.

Suit Against State of New Jersey Over Sanctuary Law: Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act

(filed April 29, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of New Jersey, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of New Jersey over its Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act (S3114), which took effect on March 25, 2026. The law prohibits any law enforcement officer, including any federal agency officer, from wearing a mask or disguise when interacting with the public while performing their duties. The law has narrow exceptions for certain officers that are undercover or are involved in other tactical operations, subject to a threat or retaliation, wear a shield that does not conceal the officer’s face, and wear medical masks. Additionally, the law requires law enforcement officers to provide identification before detaining or arresting a person but has narrow exceptions. The government argues that the law harms the federal government and public safety and unlawfully regulates the federal government. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against New Mexico, City of Albuquerque, Doña Ana County and Bernalillo County Over Sanctuary Laws

(filed May 8, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of New Mexico, et al. - The Trump Administration initially sued the state of New Mexico over its HB9 law (the Immigrant Safety Act) that was enacted February 5, 2026, and was scheduled to go into effect May 20, 2026. The law prohibits state and local government agencies, including the sheriff’s department, from entering into agreements to detain people for federal civil immigration violations, imposes restrictions on use of public property for detaining people, prohibits 287(g) agreements, among other things. Additionally, the initial lawsuit sued the City of Albuquerque over its ordinance (the Safer Community Places Ordinance No. 2026-009), which became effective March 30, 2026. Generally, the ordinance prohibits the use of city property for immigration enforcement purposes, including the use of city property as a staging area, processing location, or operation base. Specifically, the government argues that the state law disrupts the intergovernmental service agreement (IGSA) Otero County has with ICE regarding the Otero County Processing Center, which is the most recent IGSA that went into effect March 16, 2026. The government also argues the state law disrupts the current 287(g) agreements it has with Torrance County and Curry County. On June 22, 2026, the government amended its complaint to include Doña Ana County for its resolution (Safe Communities for All Residents No. 2026-67) that similarly prohibits the county, its employees, or agents from authorizing permits or contracts regarding their county property for the purposes of immigration enforcement, among other things. The government also included a challenge to Bernalillo County’s ordinance (Safer Community Places No. 2025-33), which is similar to the City of Albuquerque’s ordinance. Generally, the government argues that all these laws are preempted by federal law and discriminate against the federal government. On July 6, 2026, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was filed by the state and localities.  

Suit Against the State of Connecticut Over Facial Covering, Identification, and Use of Force Laws

(May 15, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of Connecticut, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of Connecticut over certain provisions of its law, Senate Bill 397 (An Act Concerning Democracy and Government Accountability and the Use and Retention of Data from Automated License Plate Reader Systems), which went into effect May 4, 2026. The challenged provisions of Connecticut's law authorize state officials to investigate and criminally prosecute incidents involving the use of force by federal officers that do not comply with the state’s use-of-force standards, prohibit federal officers from wearing facial coverings, and require federal officers to identify themselves, among other things. The prohibition of any facial covering and identification requirement carries a misdemeanor violation penalty. The federal case is ongoing.

Suit Against the State of Maine Over Confidential/Undercover Licensing Policy

(filed May 27, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of Maine, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of Maine for its Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) confidential/undercover license plates policy. It alleges that in January 2026 the BMV announced a new policy that paused the issuance of confidential license plates and registrations to federal law enforcement agencies while it reviewed its policies. In February 2026, the Maine Secretary of State’s Office sent a letter to federal agencies announcing that it reviewed its policies and clarified that a new application form was needed to comply with Maine’s law. The new form requires an attestation by the heads of agencies that the plates will only be used on unmarked vehicles primarily for law enforcement purposes, plates will not be loaned to another law enforcement agency, plates will not be used for federal civil immigration enforcement, and the plates must be renewed annually, among other things. In May 2026, the form was amended and clarified that the plates cannot be used for federal civil immigration enforcement purposes, except where the use is incidental to or in support of the agency’s authorized criminal investigation function. The government challenges the policy primarily because it discriminates against the federal government. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against the State of Washington Over Confidential/Undercover Licensing Policy

(filed May 27, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of Washington, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of Washington over its confidential/undercover license plates policy. It alleges that in October 2025, Washington’s Department of Licensing (DOL) started denying requests from DHS to obtain and renew undercover license plates and registrations. The government alleges that in January 2026, Washington DOL informed Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) that it was suspending the issuance and renewal of undercover license plates for DHS-affiliated entities for an indeterminate period. In May 2026, the state’s Attorney General sent a letter to the Department of Justice confirming that the state voluntarily provides undercover plates to federal agencies each year and included a list of those agencies, but DHS agencies were left out of the list. Additionally, DOL requested DHS to turn in all current undercover plates and obtain new registrations for each vehicle to conform with state law, the Keep Washington Working Act (RCW 43.17.425), that prohibits the use of funds for the targeting of residents solely on the basis of race, religion, immigration or citizenship states, or national or ethnic origin. Washington DOL’s regular plate policy requires that DHS agencies provide an agency name, address or P.O box, even if the DHS agency is not engaging in immigration enforcement. The government challenges the policy primarily because it discriminates against the federal government. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against the State of Oregon Over Confidential/Undercover Licensing Policy

(May 27, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of Oregon, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of Oregon over its confidential/undercover license plates policy. The government alleges that in April 2026 Oregon’s Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division (DMV) paused confidential plates and registrations to federal agencies but not for state or local law enforcement agencies. Oregon state law allows confidential plates for federal law enforcement if it is for criminal investigations. The government alleges Oregon is requiring the government to bear U.S. government plates through its regular licensing policy. The government challenges the policy primarily because it discriminates against the federal government. The federal case is ongoing.  

Suit Against the State of Massachusetts Over Confidential/Undercover Licensing Policy

(filed May 27, 2026) 

U.S. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of Massachusetts over its confidential/undercover license plates policy. The government alleges that in 2026 Massachusetts’s Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) changed its policy and refused to issue confidential license plates to CBP and ICE. The complaint further alleges that, in a letter to the DOJ, Massachusetts explained that the policy distinguishes between law enforcement engaged in civil investigations versus those engaged in criminal investigations, among other things. The government challenges the policy primarily because it discriminates against the federal government. The federal case is ongoing.  

Suit Against the State of Virginia Over Facial Covering and Identification Laws and Other Sanctuary Laws

(filed June 11, 2026) 

U.S. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of Virginia over its sanctuary laws. The government challenges certain sections of Virginia’s Senate Bill 32 that prohibit federal officers from wearing facial coverings while performing official duties and require them to identify themselves. The law imposes misdemeanor criminal penalties for violations and does not exempt federal officers. Lastly, the government challenges Virginia’s Senate Bill 783 and HB 1441 that were signed into law on April 22, 2026, which imposes new conditions on current and new future 287(g) agreements. The new conditions include identification requirements, restrictions on where immigration enforcement may be conducted, and requirements to provide the names and ranks of all federal agents involved in any immigration enforcement activity. The government alleges the enacted laws unconstitutionally regulate and interfere with federal law enforcement. The federal case is ongoing. 

Suit Against City of Philadelphia Over Facial Covering and Identification Law

(filed June 18, 2026) 

U.S. v. City of Philadelphia, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the City of Philadelphia over certain provisions of Bill 260060. Specifically, the government challenges provisions that prohibit federal officers from wearing facial coverings, requiring them and their vehicles to display identifying information, and imposing civil penalties for violations. The government alleges the enacted law unconstitutionally regulates and interferes with federal law enforcement. The federal case is ongoing.  

Cross-Litigation Over State of New York’s Sanctuary Law

(New York State and federal government lawsuit simultaneously filed June 22, 2026) 

State of New York v. U.S. DOJ, et al. & U.S. v. State of New York, et al. - On June 22, 2026, the Trump Administration and New York filed competing lawsuits over New York’s immigration enforcement law, SB 9005-C. The government alleges that the law unconstitutionally interferes with federal immigration enforcement by regulating federal officers’ conduct and restricting cooperation between the state and federal authorities, while New York seeks a declaration that the law is constitutional and an injunction preventing the government from interfering with the enforcement of its law. Specifically, the government challenges New York's laws that prohibit federal officers from wearing facial coverings while performing official duties (The Facial Covering Act) and require them to identify themselves (The Identification Act). Both laws impose the same criminal penalties: a first offense is punishable by up to fifteen days in jail, and each subsequent offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. Additionally, the government challenges the Termination Act, which restricts agreements to house or detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations and bans 287(g) agreements. In its own lawsuit, New York argues that SB 9005-C is a valid exercise of the state’s police powers to protect public safety and transparency. Both lawsuits are ongoing.  

Suit Against State of Maryland Over Sanctuary Law

(filed July 9, 2026) 

U.S. v. State of Maryland, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the state of Maryland over provisions of its Community Trust Act. The government challenges provisions that prohibit local correctional facilities from inquiring about or investigating an individual’s citizenship, immigration status or place of birth; restrict communication and cooperation with federal immigration authorities; and prohibit honoring ICE detainers or transferring individuals to federal immigration custody unless presented with a judicial warrant, among other things. Additionally, the government challenges the guidance of the law by Maryland’s Attorney General. The federal case is ongoing.  

Suit Against City of Milwaukee Over Facial Covering and Identification Law

(filed July 23, 2026) 

U.S. v. City of Milwaukee, et al. - The Trump Administration sued the City of Milwaukee over its ordinance (Common Council File No. 251797, § 105-140), which prohibits federal law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while performing official duties and requires them to display individual identifying information. The ordinance authorizes the City of Milwaukee to impose a forfeiture of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each violation. The government alleges that the ordinance unlawfully interferes with federal operations. The federal case is ongoing.