Judge Rejects Trump Lawsuit Against Chicago Sanctuary Policies/ Newslooks/ WASHIINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit challenging Chicago’s sanctuary laws. The suit claimed local policies undermined federal immigration enforcement. City and state leaders praised the ruling as a win for public safety and local authority.
Chicago Sanctuary Law Victory + Quick Looks
- Trump administration lawsuit dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins
- Lawsuit challenged Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance, which limits ICE cooperation
- Mayor Brandon Johnson and Gov. JB Pritzker praised the decision as a win for public safety
- Federal suit claimed city policies “thwart” immigration enforcement
- Ruling reinforces cities’ authority to focus policing on community needs
- No response yet from DOJ or DHS following the judge’s decision
- Part of a broader Trump strategy targeting sanctuary cities nationwide
- Illinois joins cities like NYC and LA defending similar local ordinances
- Chicago has long been a sanctuary city, expanding protections during Trump’s first term
Deep Look
Federal Judge Tosses Trump Administration Lawsuit Over Chicago’s Sanctuary Protections
CHICAGO (AP) — In a pivotal legal ruling, a federal judge dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit that sought to overturn Chicago’s sanctuary city laws, delivering a significant win for local autonomy in the face of aggressive federal immigration enforcement efforts.
U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins issued the ruling Friday, rejecting claims by the Trump administration that Chicago’s “Welcoming City Ordinance” obstructs federal law. The decision aligns with the city’s longstanding stance that local law enforcement should prioritize community safety over federal immigration crackdowns.
The Trump administration filed the lawsuit in February 2025, accusing the city of violating federal law by refusing to share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and limiting access to individuals subject to deportation.
The administration argued that Chicago’s policies “thwart federal efforts” and are incompatible with federal law enforcement goals. But Judge Jenkins dismissed the lawsuit in full, supporting the city’s right to direct its law enforcement priorities without federal interference.
Local Leaders Applaud the Decision
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson hailed the ruling as a win for both legality and morality, stating:
“This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration’s reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.”
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker echoed the sentiment, declaring on social media,
“Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.”
Both leaders emphasized that community trust in law enforcement is undermined when local agencies are co-opted into federal immigration efforts. They argue that sanctuary laws allow police to better serve immigrant communities without fear of deportation consequences.
Part of a National Legal Push
The lawsuit against Chicago was part of a broader legal campaign by the Trump administration to dismantle sanctuary city policies across the United States. Similar lawsuits have been filed in:
- New York City
- Los Angeles
- Denver
- Rochester, NY
- And four municipalities in New Jersey
In each case, the administration contends that local laws restricting cooperation with ICE violate federal authority.
Despite the administration’s strategy, several rulings have affirmed local governments’ ability to set their own public safety priorities, especially when sanctuary policies are consistent with constitutional principles and community trust-building efforts.
Chicago’s Sanctuary Status: A Longstanding Legacy
Chicago has identified as a sanctuary city for decades, but its protections were strengthened during Trump’s first term in 2017. That year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, surprised many in his party by signing statewide sanctuary protections into law.
The term “sanctuary city” does not have an official legal definition, but it generally refers to local jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with ICE, including by:
- Not honoring ICE detainers without warrants
- Refusing to share immigration status unless required by law
- Preventing ICE access to local jails or police stations
Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance is one of the strongest in the country, reaffirming the city’s commitment to protecting immigrant communities from fear-based policing.
What Comes Next?
As of Friday, the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security had not responded to requests for comment. It remains to be seen whether the administration will appeal the decision or shift focus to other legal targets.
However, this latest ruling strengthens the argument that cities and states have the legal authority to resist federal attempts to compel local law enforcement into immigration-related roles.
As the Trump administration continues its immigration crackdown through the courts, local jurisdictions across the country are carefully watching Chicago’s case as a potential precedent.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.