The Trump Administration has repeatedly announced its intention to sue sanctuary jurisdiction over their policies. In return, states and localities have sued the Trump administration for withholding federal funds from them.
Most of these lawsuits make similar legal claims, alleging that the laws of the state or local government violate the Supremacy Clause and the federal statute 8 USC 1373. To learn more about 8 USC 1373, see ILRC, 8 USC 1373 What Does it Mean for Sanctuary Jurisdiction?
Additionally, sanctuary jurisdictions have initiated lawsuits against the federal government for conditioning their funding on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement or for unlawfully federalizing and deploying the National Guard.
Go back to federal tracking information.
City and County of SF, et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.
City and County of SF, et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.
On April 24, 2025, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement 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.” Note 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.
Note that 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.
Newsom et al. v. Donald Trump et al.
Newsom et al. v. Donald Trump et al.
California challenged the 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 Governor and blocked further deployments. The federal case is ongoing at the district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (note there are two cases pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals related to this case).
State of California et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation
State of California et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation
States challenged the “Duffy Directive/Letter” (dated April 24, 2025) that says all Department of Transportation (DOT) grant recipients require cooperation 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.
State of Illinois et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.
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.
State of Illinois et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al.
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 filed its appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Docket #78).
U.S. v. City of Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, Hoboken
U.S. v. City of Newark
City of Jersey City
City of Paterson
City of Hoboken
The federal case is ongoing.
U.S. v. City of Rochester
A federal court dismissed the case on November 13, 2025 because the government failed to state what relief it was seeking in federal court and also because the City of Rochester amended their 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. As of December 19, 2025, there is no indication on the case’s docket that the government amended their complaint.
U.S. v. State of Colorado, City of Denver
U.S. v. State of Colorado, City of Denver
The federal case is ongoing.
U.S. v. State of Illinois, Cook County, City of Chicago
U.S. v. State of Illinois, Cook County, City of Chicago
A federal court dismissed the complaint on July 25, 2025 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.
U.S. v. State of New York
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 Protect Our Courts Act was also not preempted because the state may refuse to assist federal civil-immigration arrests in its courthouses.