The Trump administration\u2019s Department of Justice has\u00a0filed\u00a0a series of\u00a0federal\u00a0lawsuits targeting state and local \u201csanctuary\u201d policies that limit the use of\u00a0state and\u00a0local resources for federal civil immigration enforcement.<\/p>\n
In each lawsuit,\u00a0the\u00a0DOJ\u00a0argues\u00a0that these\u00a0laws and ordinances\u00a0unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Supremacy Clause\u00a0of the Constitution\u00a0by discriminating against or directly regulating federal officials. The challenged policies vary in scope, but\u00a0all reflect local efforts to preserve community trust, ensure the functioning of courts and\u00a0justice\u00a0systems, and prevent the entanglement of local agencies in federal civil immigration operations.\u00a0Examples include rules defining when\u00a0officials may honor ICE detainer requests, share personal information\u00a0with federal agents, or\u00a0permit\u00a0federal agents access to state or city facilities.<\/p>\n
State and local governments, joined by community organizations, law enforcement leaders, and former judges, have defended these policies as lawful exercises of state and municipal authority\u00a0protected by the\u00a010th\u00a0Amendment, which reserves all powers not entrusted to the federal government to\u00a0state and local governments instead. They emphasize that Congress has never mandated local participation in civil immigration\u00a0enforcement\u00a0and that federal law preserves significant discretion for state and local officials to set policing and publicsafety priorities.<\/p>\n
On November 25, 2025, the Brennan Center, along with co-counsel Anderson & Kreiger LLP, filed a\u00a0friend-of-the-court\u00a0brief on behalf of former law enforcement officials in support of\u00a0the City of\u00a0Boston\u2019s\u00a0motion to dismiss\u00a0the\u00a0DOJ\u2019s lawsuit.<\/p>\n
On December 9, 2025, the Brennan Center filed a second\u00a0friend-of-the-court\u00a0brief\u00a0on behalf of former law enforcement officials\u00a0in support of New York City\u2019s motion to dismiss\u00a0the\u00a0DOJ\u2019s lawsuit.<\/p>\n
Both briefs are\u00a0from\u00a0law enforcement professionals with\u00a0decades of leadership experience in policing, prosecution, and corrections.\u00a0They\u00a0argue that policies limiting local law\u00a0enforcement\u2019s\u00a0participation in federal immigration\u00a0work\u00a0do not harm public safety. On the contrary,\u00a0drawing clear boundaries between\u00a0local law enforcement and ICE helps police and prosecutors\u00a0communicate clearly about their public safety mission and\u00a0retain\u00a0community trust.\u00a0The briefs\u00a0emphasize that these policies improve crime reporting,\u00a0facilitate\u00a0community cooperation with police and prosecutors, and protect public safety without undermining federal immigration\u00a0objectives.<\/p>\n
On May 28, 2026,\u00a0the district court granted Boston\u2019s motion to dismiss\u00a0the lawsuit\u00a0without prejudice, finding that the federal government had failed to\u00a0establish\u00a0standing to sue, a requirement for federal courts to hear a case under Article III of the Constitution. Among other things, standing requires plaintiffs to\u00a0establish\u00a0an injury that is redressable by a federal court. But, the court\u00a0concluded,\u00a0controlling\u00a0state law\u00a0separately\u00a0prevented Boston officials from\u00a0detaining people merely\u00a0to\u00a0facilitate\u00a0transfer to ICE custody\u00a0\u2014 something beyond the court\u2019s power to\u00a0alter.\u00a0Similarly,\u00a0because\u00a0there was no conflict between city and federal laws on the sharing of information between ICE and city officials,\u00a0there was\u00a0no injury to redress.<\/p>\n
Documents\u00a0(United States v. City of Boston<\/a>)<\/p>\n