A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to force the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago to assist in its immigration enforcement efforts, marking a significant legal setback for the former administration’s broader campaign to challenge so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions.
In a detailed 64-page ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins dismissed the administration’s lawsuit, stating that the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal immigration laws—a principle protected under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which limits federal overreach into state authority.
“This lawsuit amounts to an unconstitutional end-run around the Tenth Amendment,” Jenkins wrote in her decision, siding with state officials who argued that cooperation with federal immigration agencies is optional—not mandatory.
What the Ruling Means
The court made clear that while states are permitted to work with federal immigration agencies, they are not obligated to do so. The ruling cited multiple past Supreme Court decisions reinforcing this interpretation of the balance between state and federal power.
Judge Jenkins emphasized that federal immigration laws do not override state laws in a way that allows the federal government to “commandeer” state or local officials or force them to dedicate resources toward federal enforcement efforts.
Her decision also rejected the Justice Department’s argument that Illinois’ sanctuary-style policies violate federal supremacy, stating that the Illinois Trust Act and related state laws do not illegally interfere with the federal government’s responsibilities.
Background: Illinois’ Sanctuary Policies
In 2021, Illinois passed legislation that restricts state and local law enforcement from:
- Sharing an individual’s immigration status
- Providing release dates or custody information to federal immigration authorities
- Detaining individuals solely at the request of federal immigration agencies without a judicial warrant
The law was part of a broader trend among Democratic-led states to limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts, particularly in response to aggressive deportation policies under the Trump administration.
The Broader Legal Battle Over Immigration and State Rights
This lawsuit marked the first major legal challenge under the Trump administration’s renewed push in 2024 to curtail sanctuary jurisdictions. Similar cases have been filed against New York, New Jersey, and California—though most have faced uphill legal battles.
The Illinois case also closely echoes a 2018 lawsuit against California, which was ultimately dismissed by a federal appeals court. That case also challenged California’s limits on information sharing between state agencies and federal immigration officials.
Jenkins’ ruling cited these past cases and upheld the consistent interpretation that state and local governments cannot be forced to implement federal immigration policy.
Attempt to Include Illinois Governor Dismissed
The lawsuit had named Illinois Governor JB Pritzker as a defendant, but Jenkins removed him from the case entirely, noting that the Justice Department “openly acknowledged” that it had no legal grounds to sue him directly.
She also criticized the DOJ for including Pritzker in what appeared to be a politically symbolic move rather than a legally sound strategy.
Related Federal Funding Disputes
In past years, the Department of Justice also tried to withhold federal grants from sanctuary jurisdictions as a way to force compliance. Several of those efforts were tied up in court.
After the Biden administration took office in 2021, it asked the Supreme Court to drop pending cases related to sanctuary funding. The high court agreed, leaving no final ruling on whether federal agencies could tie funding to immigration cooperation.
This unresolved legal gray area continues to fuel debate, especially as immigration remains a top political issue in many parts of the country.
Bondi and the DOJ Continue Broader Efforts
The latest ruling comes amid a renewed push from Trump-appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has taken an aggressive stance toward sanctuary cities.
In February, shortly after taking office, Bondi announced a separate lawsuit targeting New York state and Democratic leaders including Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, accusing them of “shielding” undocumented immigrants from federal law.
One major point of contention is New York’s Green Light Law, which allows undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses while also blocking federal immigration authorities from accessing DMV records.
“If a law enforcement officer pulls someone over and can’t access their identity or background, it puts lives at risk,” Bondi said at the time. “If you don’t comply with federal law, we will hold you accountable.”
Bondi’s office also charged Mark Schroeder, commissioner of the New York Department of Motor Vehicles, in the lawsuit.
What’s Next?
Although the ruling in Illinois is a victory for sanctuary jurisdictions, legal experts say the broader constitutional questions surrounding immigration enforcement and state sovereignty are far from settled.
With more lawsuits still pending—and federal policy constantly shifting depending on political leadership—how states and cities manage their relationship with immigration authorities remains one of the most complex and contested areas of U.S. law.
For now, Judge Jenkins’ decision reinforces a long-standing legal principle: the federal government cannot force states to carry out its policies, even on high-stakes issues like immigration.
