⚖️ Trump administration revives legal push against sanctuary policies in four major N.J. cities

️📃 Local leaders say they’re simply following state law — and protecting community trust

⚖️ A federal judge will decide whether the case proceeds

Trump administration renews fight against N.J. sanctuary rules in court

⚖️ Federal push to override New Jersey sanctuary limits

The Trump administration is pressing a federal judge to keep alive its challenge to sanctuary policies in four New Jersey cities, arguing local rules in Hoboken, Newark, Jersey City and Paterson unlawfully block federal immigration enforcement. In a new filing, government lawyers claimed the policies “afford ‘sanctuary’ to criminal illegal aliens,” and should be struck down as preempted by federal law.

The latest filings in these cases were reviewed by New Jersey Monitor. 

The move marks the latest escalation in Washington’s long-running effort to compel state and local authorities to cooperate with federal civil immigration enforcement.

📃 Cities say they’re simply following state law

Attorneys for the four cities pushed back forcefully, arguing the lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They say the cities cannot be blamed for limits set by New Jersey’s statewide Immigrant Trust Directive, which was upheld by a federal appeals court in 2021.

“Even if this court enjoined the city’s policy, Paterson would still be bound by the New Jersey attorney general’s Immigrant Trust Directive,” lawyers for Paterson wrote, stressing that cooperation with ICE detainers is voluntary under federal law.

⚖️ Clashing interpretations of detainer rules

Administration attorneys claim local policies impose stricter limits than the state directive, particularly by declining to honor ICE administrative warrants. City officials counter that they fully comply when judicial warrants are issued and that their rules regulate only their own workers—not federal agencies.

⚖️ Judge to decide case’s fate without a hearing

Judge Evelyn Padin will rule on the motions to dismiss solely on written briefs, with no oral arguments scheduled, leaving the future of the federal challenge uncertain.

Report a correction | Contact our newsroom