On a Friday in Chicago, a federal judge set aside, for now, the Trump administration's first major court challenge to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, holding that Illinois may decline to join civil immigration enforcement without breaking federal law. The ruling rests on an old principle: the Constitution leaves to the states the powers it does not hand to Washington, and the judge found that refusing to participate is among them. The dispute is less about whether immigration matters than about how far a national government may reach into the daily work of local police and offices. The ques
Judge Dismisses Trump Administration's Suit Against Illinois and Chicago Sanctuary Policies
An "end-run around the Tenth Amendment"
Mark
Why does this ruling matter beyond Illinois?
Mimi
It's the first suit the administration brought specifically against sanctuary jurisdictions, and the judge's reasoning is broad. She said declining to help with civil immigration enforcement is protected by the Tenth Amendment.
Luke
Broad, but it's one district judge. It isn't binding on the New York or Los Angeles cases, and the reporting doesn't say whether anyone will appeal.
Mark
What does standing have to do with it?
Mimi
Jenkins found the United States lacks standing to sue over these policies. She also wrote that the policies can't be treated as regulating or discriminating against the federal government, because the Tenth Amendment protects them.
Mark
The administration says it expects vindication. Is that a real path?
Luke
The dismissal was without prejudice, so the Justice Department can amend its complaint. That's a legal option. Whether an amendment can fix what the judge found is something the source doesn't answer.
Mimi
Pritzker also drew a line. Illinois will help when federal agents present warrants for violent criminals. His objection is to participating in what he calls unlawful tactics.
Luke
That's his characterization. The ruling itself is about constitutional limits, not a finding on the administration's tactics.
Mark
And the funding fight?
Mimi
Separate track. A judge blocked the order to cut federal funds in April on separation of powers grounds, and that ruling stands.
Il Polso
- A federal judge in Chicago threw out the Justice Department's suit against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County, rejecting the government's claim that its sanctuary policies obstruct federal enforcement.
- Judge Lindsay Jenkins ruled the United States lacks standing and that Illinois's refusal to assist civil immigration enforcement is protected by the Tenth Amendment.
- The White House calls sanctuary cities a threat to public safety and says it looks forward to ultimate vindication, while Governor Pritzker celebrates the ruling as a check on unlawful federal tactics.
- Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the Justice Department can amend its complaint, and the April injunction blocking federal funding cuts to sanctuary jurisdictions remains in force.
- Parallel suits against New York City, New York State, and Los Angeles are pending, so the Tenth Amendment question is set to return in more courtrooms.
On a Friday in Chicago, a federal judge set aside, for now, the Trump administration's first major court challenge to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, holding that Illinois may decline to join civil immigration enforcement without breaking federal law. The ruling rests on an old principle: the Constitution leaves to the states the powers it does not hand to Washington, and the judge found that refusing to participate is among them. The dispute is less about whether immigration matters than about how far a national government may reach into the daily work of local police and offices. The question has not been settled, and it will likely return in other cities and courtrooms before it is.
On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County. It was the government's first court challenge aimed directly at sanctuary jurisdictions, and it ended, at least for now, with a 64-page ruling in favor of the states.
U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins found that the United States lacked standing to bring the case. She held that Illinois's decision to stay out of civil immigration enforcement is protected by the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states powers the federal government was not given. The Justice Department had argued that local rules barring police from helping with civil immigration detentions without a criminal warrant were an intentional obstruction. Jenkins rejected that view, warning that a ruling for the administration would allow Washington to commandeer states under another name.
Gov. JB Pritzker welcomed the decision, while making clear that Illinois will still cooperate with federal authorities when they follow the law and present warrants for violent criminals. The White House, for its part, said cities like Chicago endanger public safety and expressed confidence in eventual vindication. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the Justice Department may refile an amended complaint, and an April ruling blocking federal funding cuts to sanctuary jurisdictions still stands.
The Chicago case is one of several. Suits are also pending against New York City, New York State over its Green Light Law, and Los Angeles, which faced clashes and National Guard deployments during immigration detention protests. More rulings on the reach of the Tenth Amendment are likely to follow.
On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago threw out the Trump administration's lawsuit against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County, ending, at least for now, the government's first court challenge aimed squarely at "sanctuary jurisdictions." The ruling ran 64 pages. U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, appointed by President Joe Biden, granted Illinois's motion to dismiss after concluding that the United States lacks standing to sue over the policies.
The policies in question restrict how far local officials can go in helping federal immigration authorities with detentions. The Justice Department sued in February, days after Attorney General Pam Bondi was confirmed by the Senate. Its 22-page complaint targeted state, city, and county rules that bar local law enforcement from assisting with civil immigration enforcement unless a criminal warrant is present. Bondi said the policies "obstruct" the federal government, and the complaint accused the three jurisdictions of an intentional effort to impede enforcement and to block the communication between federal, state, and local officers that federal officials say they need.
Jenkins rejected that framing on constitutional grounds. She held that Illinois's choice to stay out of civil immigration enforcement is protected by the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states any powers not given to the federal government or denied to the states. In her words, the policies reflect a decision not to participate in enforcement, one that the Tenth Amendment protects and that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not preempt. Because of that protection, she wrote, the policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.
She also warned about what the other outcome would mean. Granting the administration's request, she wrote, would create an "end-run around the Tenth Amendment," letting Washington commandeer states under the label of intergovernmental immunity, the kind of direct regulation of states the amendment forbids.
Gov. JB Pritzker praised the decision. He said it ensures state law enforcement is not carrying out the administration's unlawful policies or troubling tactics. He also set out the limits of Illinois's position: as state law allows, Illinois will help the federal government when it follows the law and presents warrants to hold violent criminals accountable, but it will not take part in what he called violations of the law and abuses of power.
The administration has not conceded. Jenkins dismissed the case without prejudice, which leaves the Justice Department free to amend its complaint. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the government at every level has a duty to protect Americans from harm and argued that sanctuary cities like Chicago interfere with federal enforcement at the expense of public safety. A White House spokesperson said the administration "looks forward to ultimate vindication on the issue."
The Chicago case is one of several. This week the Justice Department sued New York City, describing it in a Thursday complaint as "the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country's immigration laws." In February it sued New York state over its Green Light Law, which lets undocumented immigrants apply for noncommercial driver's licenses and bars state officials from handing that data to federal immigration authorities. In June it filed against Los Angeles, arguing that the city's policies discriminate against federal immigration agents by treating them differently from other law enforcement. That suit came as detention efforts in California led to clashes between protesters and federal authorities and as the administration deployed thousands of National Guard troops.
The courtroom setbacks extend beyond Illinois. In January, Trump signed an executive order directing Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to keep sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving federal funds and to consider criminal or civil penalties for localities that interfere with federal law enforcement. A federal judge blocked the funding effort in April, finding it violated separation of powers. That judge had also blocked an earlier attempt by Trump in 2017. With suits pending against New York and Los Angeles, and an amended complaint possible in Illinois, more rulings on the reach of the Tenth Amendment are likely to follow.
Citazioni salienti
The Sanctuary Policies reflect a decision not to participate in enforcing civil immigration law, a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment.— U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, paraphrasing her ruling
Illinois will assist the federal government when they follow the law and present warrants, but will not participate in abuses of power.— Gov. JB Pritzker, paraphrased from statement
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su NBC News ↗
Politics & Governance