Justice Department sues Illinois and Chicago over immigration enforcement
The Justice Department sued the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago on Thursday, seeking to block state and local protections for undocumented immigrants that the Trump administration says are impeding federal immigration enforcement efforts.
The lawsuit appears to be the first the Justice Department has filed after vowing to investigate state and local officials for allegedly interfering with President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Acting deputy attorney general Emil Bove warned in a memo during the first days of the Trump administration that officials in “sanctuary cities” could face legal action if they undermine federal immigration laws.
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges that multiple state and local laws are “designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law.”
It targets a state law and a Cook County ordinance that generally prohibit local officials from participating in immigration enforcement, as well as Chicago’s “Welcoming City Ordinance,” which bars police from arresting people based on immigration status and limits what information they can share about immigrants with federal authorities.
The Justice Department says in the suit that these laws clash with the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which establishes that federal law supersedes a conflicting state law. Echoing rhetoric from Trump that has targeted immigrants despite data showing they do not commit crimes more often than other U.S. residents, the complaint alleges that if federal immigration officials aren’t granted more access, public safety could be jeopardized.
The state and local policies “have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for, and deliberately impeding, federal immigration officers’ ability to carry out their responsibilities in those jurisdictions,” federal prosecutors wrote in their 22-page filing.
They pointed to policies that allegedly limit information sharing with federal authorities, require federal agents to obtain criminal arrest warrants instead of relying on civil enforcement powers, and fail to cooperate with the transfer of immigrants to federal custody.
A spokesman for Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, said the main state law at issue in the lawsuit, the Trust Act, “has always been compliant with federal law and still is today.”
“Illinois will defend our laws that prioritize police resources for fighting crime while enabling state law enforcement to assist with arresting violent criminals,” the spokesman, Alex Gough, said in an emailed statement. “Instead of working with us to support law enforcement, the Trump Administration is making it more difficult to protect the public, just like they did when Trump pardoned the convicted January 6 violent criminals.”
Pritzker said in a news conference after Trump took office last month that the administration had not communicated with state or local officials about its immigration plans, making it difficult for officials to assist federal authorities with what the governor called “constitutional” immigration work. Pritzker vowed to stand up for law-abiding Illinois residents, regardless of their immigration status.
Illinois is already in litigation with the Trump administration over its immigration policies, having joined with more than 20 other states in lawsuits seeking to block Trump’s plans to curtail birthright citizenship.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat, said the city’s law department was reviewing the complaint.
“Chicago is and will remain a welcoming city, with welcoming people who work beside their neighbors to build strong communities where you can still raise a family,” Johnson said in an emailed statement. “The safety and security of Chicago residents remains the priority for the Johnson Administration. Chicago will continue to protect the working people of our city and defend against attacks on our long-standing values.”
The Justice Department’s lawsuit represents a marked escalation in efforts to force localities to assist with federal immigration operations, as Trump’s second administration seeks to make good on his campaign promises to enact a mass deportation strategy.
In Trump’s first term, his administration sought to withhold federal funding from states and localities with sanctuary city policies, which aim to limit the amount of information local law enforcement agents can ask for on immigration status and the length of time undocumented immigrants can be detained.
After his inauguration last month, Trump signed a flurry of immigration-related executive orders, including one that instructed the Justice Department to “evaluate and undertake any other lawful actions, criminal or civil, that they deem warranted based on any such jurisdiction’s practices that interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.”
Trump has aimed much of his ire at states and cities run by Democratic leaders. His administration has ramped up immigration enforcement raids in big cities, including an operation in Chicago last week. Bove and Tom Homan, the White House border czar, were in the city to witness the enforcement effort.
Before the operation in Chicago, Johnson said he was doubling down on his commitment to making Chicago a sanctuary city. His office issued guidelines in January telling city officials they should not consent to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entering private or “sensitive” city locations and instructing them to take detailed notes on any searches ICE carries out. The city also launched a public awareness campaign that featured hundreds of digital display ads offering guidance on residents’ rights if they’re stopped or detained by federal immigration agents.
There is no concrete list of jurisdictions with sanctuary policies on immigration because the policies are constantly in flux. But states such as Washington, California, Oregon and New Jersey are some examples of governments that have adopted a gradient of policies related to participation in federal immigration enforcement.
Jacob Hamburger, a visiting professor at Cornell University who focuses on how immigration affects state and local jurisdictions, said courts have consistently held that the U.S. government cannot commandeer state or local governments to enforce federal laws or enact federal programs.
If the Trump administration’s argument “is that withholding cooperation under sanctuary policies is interfering with federal immigration laws, that’s a major break from how the courts have understood this,” Hamburger said. “In my view, there’s little chance that the government succeeds in this lawsuit under prevailing law.”
But the lawsuit could have a deterrent effect even if it is unsuccessful in the courts, he added, by putting pressure on state and local jurisdictions to comply with federal immigration priorities or risk having to defend themselves against a similar Justice Department action.
—
• Perry Stein contributed.