Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Challenging New Jersey Sanctuary City Policies

U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit on June 25, 2026, that sought to invalidate immigration cooperation restrictions in four New Jersey cities. The ruling came on procedural grounds, finding that the federal government lacked standing to proceed. The decision leaves in place local policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities in Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, and Paterson.

The DOJ filed the suit in May 2025 against the cities and their officials, alleging that their sanctuary-style policies violated the Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal immigration enforcement. The complaint targeted local rules that generally prohibit honoring federal immigration detainers without a judicial warrant and restrict the sharing of certain information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The administration argued these measures created obstacles to removing individuals present in the country unlawfully, including those with criminal convictions.

Judge Padin, appointed by former President Joe Biden, ruled that the lawsuit suffered from a fundamental flaw. The city policies largely mirrored New Jersey’s statewide Immigrant Trust Directive, an attorney general order first issued in 2018 that governs how state and local law enforcement interact with federal immigration agents. The directive draws a distinction between criminal enforcement, handled by local officers, and civil immigration matters, handled by federal authorities. It limits voluntary assistance to ICE in most circumstances to encourage immigrant communities to report crimes without fear of deportation.

The court concluded that challenging only the municipal policies, while leaving the state directive untouched, meant the federal government could not demonstrate the necessary injury or redressability for standing. Judge Padin noted that even without the city measures, the state framework would continue to constrain local cooperation. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the DOJ to refile a revised complaint that addresses the statewide directive.

New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive has faced prior legal challenges but has been upheld in earlier proceedings. It applies to state, county, and municipal officers and prohibits certain forms of assistance to federal immigration enforcement, such as holding individuals solely on civil detainers absent additional justification. Proponents describe it as a measure to build community trust and improve public safety by encouraging crime reporting. Critics contend it shields individuals from lawful removal proceedings and conflicts with federal authority over immigration.

The DOJ lawsuit represented part of broader Trump administration efforts to confront sanctuary jurisdictions across the country. Federal officials have maintained that immigration enforcement is a national responsibility and that local policies obstructing detainers or information sharing undermine the rule of law and public safety. The administration has pursued similar actions in other states where local or state measures limit cooperation with ICE.

The four defendant cities welcomed the ruling. Officials stated that it affirms their approach to balancing enforcement priorities with community trust. The decision does not resolve the underlying question of whether the policies conflict with federal law or exceed local authority. It also does not affect the Immigrant Trust Directive itself, which remains in effect statewide.

Legal observers noted that the standing dismissal provides the Justice Department an opportunity to refile with a broader challenge that includes the state directive. Such a refiling could allow courts to address the preemption and constitutional issues more directly. The case highlights ongoing tensions between federal immigration authority and state and local policies that seek to limit cooperation.

Sanctuary measures like those in New Jersey have drawn sustained criticism for releasing criminal noncitizens into communities rather than transferring them to ICE custody. Federal data has documented instances where individuals with serious criminal histories were not detained following local arrests due to non-cooperation policies. Supporters of stricter enforcement argue that such practices create safe havens and shift costs and risks onto American citizens.

The dismissal leaves the challenged policies operational while the litigation posture remains fluid. The Justice Department has not indicated whether it will refile or pursue alternative strategies to address non-cooperation in New Jersey and elsewhere. The ruling underscores the procedural hurdles federal authorities face when challenging layered state and local immigration frameworks.