Biden judge rejects Trump's sanctuary cities lawsuit, says even a win wouldn't solve DOJ's problem
A federal judge has tossed the Trump administration's lawsuit against four New Jersey sanctuary cities, ruling the Justice Department targeted local policies that largely mirror a statewide immigration directive — meaning a court victory wouldn't eliminate restrictions on ICE cooperation.
U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin of the District of New Jersey, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, on Wednesday dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City and Paterson, ruling the federal government lacked standing because striking down the cities' policies would not remedy its alleged injuries.
"The Federal Government's case has a fundamental flaw — it treats the Challenged Policies as though they operate in isolation. They do not," Padin wrote. "New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive is a statewide directive that, like the Challenged Policies, limits voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement beyond what the law requires."
The lawsuit was part of President Donald Trump's renewed immigration crackdown following his return to office. Since declaring a national emergency at the southern border on Jan. 20, 2025, the administration has aggressively targeted so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, arguing that local policies limiting cooperation with ICE obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Constitution.
DHS TORCHES NEW JERSEY’S PROFANE ‘F---ICE ACT’ AS ASSAULTS ON AGENTS SKYROCKET 1,300%
The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in May 2025, arguing the four cities' sanctuary policies violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal immigration enforcement, including limiting voluntary cooperation with ICE, restricting information sharing, declining to honor certain immigration detainers and barring participation in civil immigration enforcement beyond what federal law requires.
Newark, Hoboken and Jersey City each adopted executive orders declaring themselves "fair and welcoming" or "sanctuary" cities, while Paterson implemented police procedures designed to comply with New Jersey's immigrant protections. The cities have argued the policies preserve community trust and allow local police to focus on state and local crime rather than federal civil immigration enforcement.
But Padin did not address the question of whether the sanctuary policies are constitutional. Instead, she ruled the federal government lacked standing because New Jersey's Immigrant Trust Directive independently imposes many of the same restrictions on law enforcement agencies across the state.
The directive, first issued under former Gov. Phil Murphy in 2018 and codified into state law by Gov. Mikie Sherrill earlier this year, limits when state and local police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities on civil immigration enforcement.
Because the statewide directive wasn't challenged in this case, Padin concluded that even if she struck down the cities' policies, many of the same restrictions would remain in place.
"Even if the Court enjoined the Challenged Policies," she wrote, "its injuries would persist."
NEW JERSEY'S BAN ON PRIVATELY OPERATED ICE DETENTION CENTERS STRUCK DOWN BY COURT
That directive has already survived multiple legal challenges. The Third Circuit upheld it after New Jersey counties argued it conflicted with federal immigration law, and the Justice Department later sued New Jersey directly over the policy, lost and did not appeal.
"No judgment here could invalidate the ITD or relieve municipal law enforcement officers of their independent obligation to follow it," Padin wrote.
The opinion also faulted the government for failing to identify concrete injuries caused solely by the cities' policies. While the Justice Department cited several instances in which ICE detainers allegedly were ignored, every example involved the Essex County Correctional Facility, a county-operated jail that is not a defendant in the lawsuit and is governed by the statewide directive.
"The Federal Government must plead facts that substantiate its feared harm," Padin wrote.
Padin dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning the administration isn't barred from bringing the case again if it can overcome the standing issue.
The Justice Department declined to comment.