August 7, 2025
On July 25, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the sanctuary policies of the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, and the County of Cook, including the Illinois TRUST Act (United States v. Illinois, No. 25 CV 1285, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142735 (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2025)).
In its complaint, the Department alleged that the challenged sanctuary policies are preempted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. The sanctuary policies at issue in this case generally prohibit state and local law enforcement from assisting federal civil immigration activities, including compliance with civil immigration detainers and administrative immigration warrants; sharing information about noncitizens, including contact information, incarceration status, and release dates; and providing federal immigration agents access to individuals in local custody.
The Department argued that these policies interfere with federal immigration law enforcement, unnecessarily endanger federal officers, and facilitate the release of dangerous criminals. The Federal District Court in Chicago disagreed, finding in favor of the State and local governments. Here are the key findings from the Court’s decision to dismiss the Department of Justice’s complaint:
- Federal Law Cannot Regulate States: The Constitution only permits federal law to preempt state laws when regulating private actors, and blocks the federal government from using preemption to regulate states and local governments directly.
- Federal Immigration Detainer Compliance is Voluntary: The Court affirmed that the INA grants certain federal agencies the right to issue and enforce administrative warrants and immigration detainers, but does not compel state and local law enforcement to assist or comply with these enforcement tools. The Court explicitly held that federal administrative warrants and immigration detainers are “requests, not requirements,” and local law enforcement is not legally obligated to comply.
- “Refusing to help is not the same as impeding:” The Court found that sanctuary policies that prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration detention efforts do not obstruct federal immigration enforcement in a manner that triggers preemption. Under the INA, state and local cooperation is voluntary, and state and local governments retain the right to prevent their officers from participating in civil immigration enforcement activities.
- The Tenth Amendment Protects State Authority: The Court determined that the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from compelling state and local law enforcement resources to administer or facilitate federal immigration enforcement policies, without state or local consent. The Court explicitly stated that applying preemption to the federal policies in question would improperly “dictate what a state legislature may and may not do” with its law enforcement resources.
- Federal Government Is Not Entitled to Non-Immigration Status Information or Access to Detained Individuals: The INA prohibits state and local restrictions that limit law enforcement from sharing the “citizenship or immigration status” of any individual in its custody. The Court ruled that sanctuary policy provisions that restrict sharing contact details, custody status, and release dates of individuals in their custody do not conflict with the INA because these types of information cannot be used to establish “citizenship or immigration status.”
- Sanctuary Policies Do Not Regulate the Federal Government: The Court rejected the Department’s claims that the sanctuary policies discriminated against or directly regulated the federal government, finding that the challenged policies do not treat federal immigration officials differently from comparable non-federal employees, but rather differentiate based on the enforcement context (civil immigration enforcement vs. criminal immigration enforcement). Furthermore, the policies regulate only state and local entities and law enforcement, not the federal government directly.
Overall, the ruling reinforces the autonomy of Illinois and its municipalities to establish policies that limit cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement and restrict compliance with administrative immigration orders, provided those policies focus on non-mandatory assistance and do not compel or directly regulate federal operations. Importantly, this case has no impact on the obligation of state and local governments to comply with federal criminal warrants.
The Court dismissed the Department’s complaint in its entirety, but granted the Department leave to file an amended complaint on or before August 22, 2025. We expect the Department to file an amended complaint or appeal the District Court’s decision.
This lawsuit is one of several brought by the Department of Justice challenging sanctuary policies around the country. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to provide a definitive ruling on the Department’s positions regarding the legality of these types of sanctuary policies.
We will continue to monitor this evolving legal landscape and provide updates on key developments.
In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding local government obligations and federal immigration enforcement, please contact Kelsea Neal Nolot or any Elrod Friedman attorney.