Biden-appointed judge deals Trump another sanctuary city defeat in major immigration fight

Judge Rejects Trump Administration’s Challenge to New York City’s Sanctuary Laws

A federal judge in New York City has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump‑era Justice Department (JD) that sought to strike down the city’s sanctuary policies. U.S. District Judge Ramón E. Reyes Jr. ruled on Thursday that the JD “lacked standing” and that the city’s restrictions on federal immigration enforcement are not pre‑empted by federal law, effectively giving New York City a legal win in the latest battle over sanctuary status.

The Lawsuit and Its Claims

In July 2025 the JD sued New York City, arguing that the city’s sanctuary laws “unlawfully hinder federal immigration enforcement” by limiting local police cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The suit was one of more than 24 federal cases the DOJ has filed against cities and states that restrict cooperation with immigration authorities.

The DOJ’s complaint contended that New York City’s policies—most notably the city’s refusal to honor ICE detainers and limits on information sharing—constituted a “backdoor around the Tenth Amendment.” It claimed that the policies were pre‑empted by federal immigration law and that the city’s restrictions violated federal statutes that require local law‑enforcement agencies to assist ICE.

Judge Reyes’ Decision

Reyes denied the DOJ’s claims on two key grounds. First, he found that the agency “lacked standing” to sue because any order invalidating the city’s policies would not address the alleged harms. “Striking down the city’s restrictions would not remedy its alleged harm because separate state laws restricting cooperation would remain in place,” Reyes wrote. He therefore concluded that the DOJ could not bring the case.

Second, Reyes rejected the DOJ’s pre‑emption arguments. “All of the United States’ preemption claims — express, conflict and field — fail because the relevant federal statutes do not regulate private actors,” he wrote. The judge held that federal immigration statutes do not compel local governments to provide broader information beyond the citizen’s or immigration status, and that the city’s limits on sharing release dates or custody status were lawful.

Reyes also addressed the Tenth Amendment’s anti‑commandeering doctrine. “If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, the Tenth Amendment anti‑commandeering doctrine means nothing,” he wrote, underscoring that the federal government cannot force a city to use its officials in federal programs.

City’s Response

Mayor Zohran Mamdani celebrated the ruling on social media. In a post on X, he said: “The federal government tried to turn our public servants into deportation agents and force New York City to carry out ICE’s cruel agenda. Today, a federal court rejected that effort and upheld our laws. Every New Yorker deserves to seek help from their city without fear of being targeted for deportation. We will stand by our immigrant neighbors, defend our laws and protect the promise that this city belongs to all of us.”

Mamdani’s comments echo the city’s long‑standing stance that its sanctuary policies protect residents from criminalized immigration enforcement and preserve community trust in local police.

Legal Expert Commentary

Abhishek Kambli, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Holtzman Vogel, criticized Reyes’ reasoning. “The sovereign harm is done just by the fact that New York City has the law in the books, no matter what other factors prevent practical application of the United States' position,” Kambli told Fox News Digital. He argued that the DOJ was not trying to force city officials to carry out ICE duties but rather to prevent local laws from obstructing federal enforcement. “Really what the 10th Amendment anti‑commandeering means is you can't force states to go from doing nothing to affirmatively assisting,” Kambli added. “What these statutes are doing is basically preventing states from actively obstructing federal immigration enforcement.”

Kambli also said the distinction over what information the city withholds matters less than whether local governments are pre‑empted by federal law. “The issue is mainly whether any state or locality that prohibits cooperation is preempted by federal law, regardless of what the information is,” he said.

Context and Implications

The ruling is part of a broader pattern of federal court decisions that have largely sided with sanctuary jurisdictions. Earlier dismissals involved Boston, Los Angeles and Minnesota, all of which were sued by the DOJ on similar grounds. The current decision adds to a growing body of case law that limits federal reach into local immigration enforcement.

Legal scholars note that the judge’s emphasis on the Tenth Amendment and standing may shape future litigation. The decision clarifies that the federal government cannot compel localities to participate in ICE operations and that the DOJ must demonstrate concrete injury, not just policy disagreement, to have standing.

The DOJ has not yet announced whether it will appeal. If the case moves forward, it could test the limits of the anti‑commandeering doctrine and the extent to which federal immigration statutes pre‑empt local laws. Meanwhile, New York City’s sanctuary policies remain in effect, providing residents with protection against arbitrary deportation and reinforcing the city’s commitment to serving all its inhabitants.

The outcome underscores the ongoing legal tug‑of‑war over immigration enforcement and the role of local governments in balancing federal mandates with community values. For now, New York City’s sanctuary status stands, thanks to Judge Reyes’ ruling that the federal government’s challenge lacked both legal standing and the pre‑emption necessary to override local policy.