(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 Face 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. On August 3, 2036, the court preliminarily enjoined the Face Covering and the Identification Acts, holding that the government was likely to succeed on its argument that those laws directly regulate federal officers. However, the court declined to block the Termination Act, reasoning that 287(g) agreements contemplate voluntary state and local cooperation and that New York’s decision to withdraw from that cooperation was not likely preempted or an unlawful direct regulation of the federal government. The court also rejected the government’s discrimination theory because New York was not treating a similarly situated nonfederal entity more favorably. Lastly, the court rejected the government’s Contracts Clause theory, finding that the Termination Act served a significant and legitimate public purpose related to public safety and the allocation of state and local law enforcement resources. The court further found that the government had not shown self-interested reneging or provided evidence that the law was unreasonable or unnecessary. On September 18, 2026, since both lawsuits are related, the suit by New York was held in abeyance while the government’s lawsuit proceeds.