The judge appointed by Biden handed Trump another setback for the sanctuary city in the great immigration war
A federal judge ruled that Trump's lawsuit against New York City's sanctuary policies failed, citing the 10th Amendment's antitrust doctrine.
As the victim's father reacted to the court's decision, New York City's shelter laws were upheld
New York City's shelter laws have been upheld after a federal judge dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit and strongly criticized Joe Abraham, whose daughter Kathy was killed in a car crash. Meanwhile, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul deflects questions about immigrant crime during a gubernatorial debate.
A Biden-appointed judge dealt another legal blow to the Trump administration on Thursday, tossing his lawsuit to change New York City's asylum policies after ruling that the Justice Department's arguments amounted to "backhandedness around the 10th Amendment."
The Trump administration sued New York City in July 2025, alleging that the city's sanctuary laws unlawfully impede federal immigration enforcement by limiting local law enforcement's cooperation with federal authorities.
The New York City case is one of more than two dozen lawsuits the Trump administration has filed against state and local jurisdictions over asylum and related policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
But US District Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. ruled that the federal government lacks standing to challenge New York City's restrictions on deference to ICE detainers, rejecting Justice Department claims that the city's sanctuary policies are preempted by federal law.
Mamdani blasts the feds for launching a "campaign of violence and terror" against New York immigrants.
New York City Mayor Zahran Mamdani celebrated the ruling in a Friday post on X, 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 implement ICE's brutal agenda. Today, a federal court rejected that effort and upheld our laws. Every New Yorker deserves to ask their city for help without fear of deportation. We will stand with our immigrant neighbors, defending all our laws."
Rees found that the state lacked standing because repealing city limits would not remedy its alleged injury because separate state laws restricting cooperation would remain.
But Abhishek Kambli, a former federal prosecutor and current partner at Holtzman Vogel, rejected that argument, arguing that the city's ordinances independently undermine the federal government's authority regardless of the existence of similar state restrictions.
Federal judge halts New York law banning mask use by ice crews
Reyes also rejected the Justice Department's argument that New York City's sanctuary policies are preempted by federal immigration law.
“Even if the United States had standing—and it does not—its preemption claims fail,” Reiss wrote. "All U.S. preemption claims — express, conflict, and field — fail because the federal laws do not regulate private actors."
The judge cited the Tenth Amendment's anti-sequestration doctrine, which prevents the federal government from forcing state and local governments to use their own authorities and resources to carry out federal programs.
"If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, which is within the states' constitutional authority, the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine has no meaning," Reiss wrote.
However, Kambley argued that Reiss misinterpreted the distinction between forcing local governments to help enforce federal immigration law and preventing them from actively obstructing it.
"What the 10th Amendment anti-commandeering actually means is that you can't compel states to do anything to get positive help. What these laws do is essentially prevent states from actively obstructing federal immigration enforcement.
He argued that the Justice Department was not seeking to compel New York City officials to enforce federal immigration laws, but to prevent local laws from interfering with federal officials' ability to enforce immigration law.
"That's different than the federal government saying a state or a city is required to actively assist ICE in operations," Kambley said.
Hundreds of imprisoned illegal aliens were released despite icebreakers on the streets of the blue state, records show.
The Justice Department also argued that New York City's sanctuary policies go beyond simply refusing to assist federal authorities by limiting the sharing of information with ICE that is protected under federal law. The government further alleged that the city unfairly singled out federal immigration officials for restrictions that do not apply to other law enforcement agencies.
However, Reiss found that federal protections for information sharing apply specifically to information about a person's citizenship or immigration status and do not require local governments to provide ICE with broader details such as a person's release date or residence.
"The United States' assertion that release date and detention status information is information related to immigration or citizenship status is contrary to law," Reiss wrote.
Kambli, however, argued that the distinction about what information is being withheld misses the more important point.
"The question is primarily whether any state or locality that prohibits cooperation is preempted by federal law, regardless of what information is available," Kambley said.
The ruling marks the latest setback for the Trump administration's efforts to challenge sanctuary policies in federal court, after similar lawsuits in Boston, Los Angeles and Minnesota were dismissed.
The Democratic congressional candidate's police records show suspensions for stolen weapons and insubordination.
Ilhan Omar's attack sparks ominous predictions from the watchdog: "They probably received the goods.
Army Expo participants skeptical of Trump's peace deal with Iran hope: 'Give them up'