(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. On September 1, 2026, the federal court dismissed the government’s complaint with prejudice. First, the court held that 8 USC §§ 1373 and1644 cannot preempt Rochester’s policies because those statutes regulate state and local governments rather than private actors, and under Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S 453, 477 (2018) such provisions are not valid bases for federal preemption. Second, the court rejected the claim that Rochester unlawfully discriminated against the federal government, reasoning that the United States failed to identify a more favorably treated comparator and, where different treatment existed, it was not based on federal government status. The court also found that Rochester’s internal restrictions on cooperation with ICE, CBP, and HSI did not impose a constitutionally prohibited burden on the federal government; they merely declined to use local personnel to assist with immigration enforcement. Lastly, the court held that the policies did not unlawfully regulate the federal government because they governed the conduct of Rochester officials rather than directing or prohibiting federal officials themselves. The government may appeal the decision.