A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Trump administration targeting Illinois and Chicago over their sanctuary city policies, marking a legal setback in the administration’s ongoing efforts to compel local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
In a 64-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins — a Biden appointee — granted Illinois’ motion to dismiss, finding the federal government lacked standing to sue over state and local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Judge Jenkins ruled that Illinois’ sanctuary laws are protected under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states. “The Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants’ decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by the [Immigration and Nationality Act],” Jenkins wrote.
She further warned that siding with the administration would effectively allow Washington to override constitutional boundaries. “It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,” Jenkins stated.
Illinois Governor Applauds the Ruling
Governor JB Pritzker welcomed the court’s decision, saying it ensures that Illinois law enforcement will not be used to implement what he called “unlawful” policies of the Trump administration.
“As state law allows, Illinois will assist the federal government when they follow the law and present warrants to hold violent criminals accountable,” Pritzker said in a statement. “But what Illinois will not do is participate in the Trump administration’s violations of the law and abuses of power.”
The Justice Department has not yet commented on the ruling.
Background on the Lawsuit
The lawsuit, filed in February by the Trump Justice Department, challenged policies implemented by Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County that limit how local law enforcement can engage with federal immigration authorities — particularly in civil cases where there is no criminal warrant.
The complaint described the sanctuary laws as intentional obstructions to federal immigration enforcement and argued that they interfered with collaboration between local, state, and federal law enforcement officials. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi said the laws made it harder to keep Americans safe.
The Illinois case was the first of several legal efforts launched by the Trump administration targeting so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” across the U.S., including similar lawsuits filed in New York and California.
In New York, the administration sued over the state’s “Green Light Law,” which permits undocumented immigrants to apply for noncommercial driver’s licenses while blocking the DMV from sharing information with federal immigration authorities. In California, the Justice Department filed a complaint against Los Angeles, claiming the city’s immigration policies discriminated against federal agents.
Previous Legal Setbacks
The Trump administration has faced prior defeats in court over sanctuary city funding. A federal judge in April ruled that Trump’s 2025 executive order seeking to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions was unconstitutional, citing a violation of separation of powers.
That ruling echoed a similar outcome in 2017, when another federal judge blocked an earlier Trump directive for attempting to penalize noncompliant cities by cutting off federal support.
Despite the setback in Illinois, the administration has signaled it will continue pressing legal action against localities it deems noncooperative, with Trump directing federal agencies to explore civil and criminal penalties against sanctuary jurisdictions.
