A federal judge has dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit against New York City over its sanctuary policies, ruling that the Justice Department lacked standing to challenge the city's restrictions on cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Ramón E. Reyes Jr., delivers another legal setback to the administration's broader campaign against jurisdictions that limit local law enforcement's assistance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The lawsuit, filed in July 2025, alleged that New York City's sanctuary laws unlawfully hindered federal immigration enforcement by restricting local agencies from honoring ICE detainers and sharing certain information. It was one of more than two dozen similar suits the administration has brought against state and local governments across the country. But Reyes found that the federal government could not demonstrate standing because striking down the city's restrictions would not remedy the alleged harm, as separate state-level laws restricting cooperation would remain in effect.
Reyes also rejected the Justice Department's argument that federal immigration law preempts the city's policies. «Even if the United States has standing — and it does not — its preemption claims fail,» he wrote, adding that the relevant federal statutes do not regulate private actors. The judge leaned heavily on the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, which bars the federal government from forcing state and local officials to administer federal programs. «If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, which is within states' constitutional prerogatives, the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine means nothing,» Reyes wrote.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani celebrated the ruling, accusing the administration of trying to turn city employees into immigration enforcement agents. «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,» Mamdani said. «Every New Yorker deserves to seek help from their city without fear of being targeted for deportation.»
The ruling drew criticism from some legal observers who argued that the judge misapplied the anti-commandeering principle. Abhishek Kambli, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, told Fox News Digital that the city's laws independently harm federal authority regardless of whether similar state restrictions exist. «The sovereign harm is done just by the fact that New York City has the law on the books, no matter what other factors prevent practical application of the United States's position,» Kambli said. He contended that the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing states to affirmatively assist federal enforcement, but does not prevent it from stopping states from actively obstructing it. «That's different from the federal government saying a state or a city is required to actively assist ICE in operations,» he said.
The Justice Department had also argued that the city's policies went beyond refusing to assist federal authorities by restricting information-sharing protected under federal law and by singling out federal immigration officials for restrictions not applied to other agencies. Reyes rejected that claim, finding that federal information-sharing protections apply specifically to information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status and do not require local governments to provide broader details such as release dates or custody status. «The United States' assertion that information regarding release dates and custody status is information regarding immigration or citizenship status is contrary to law,» he wrote.
The decision follows similar dismissals of administration lawsuits against Boston, Los Angeles and Minnesota, underscoring the legal difficulty the federal government has faced in compelling local cooperation on immigration enforcement. The ruling is likely to be appealed, and the broader legal fight over the boundaries between federal immigration authority and local autonomy is expected to continue in courts across the country.