A federal judge has dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit challenging New York City’s sanctuary policies, ruling that the Justice Department lacked standing and that its arguments for overriding the local rules failed. The decision is a setback in the administration’s broader court effort against jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The Justice Department filed suit in July 2025, alleging that New York City’s laws unlawfully impeded federal immigration enforcement. The case concerned, among other issues, city restrictions on honoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers and sharing information with federal authorities. The source reports that the administration has brought more than two dozen lawsuits against state and local jurisdictions over sanctuary or related policies.
U.S. District Judge Ramón E. Reyes Jr. concluded that invalidating the city’s restrictions would not remedy the federal government’s alleged injury because separate New York state laws restricting cooperation would remain in effect. On that basis, Reyes found the government did not have standing to bring the challenge.
The judge also rejected the Justice Department’s argument that federal immigration law preempts the city’s policies. Reyes wrote that the relevant federal statutes did not regulate private actors, and said the government’s express, conflict and field-preemption theories therefore failed. He further relied on the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, which limits the federal government’s ability to compel state and local governments to use their personnel and resources to administer federal programs.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani welcomed the ruling in a post on X. He said the federal government had sought to make city employees act as deportation agents and argued that residents should be able to seek city services without fear of deportation. Mamdani said the city would defend its laws and support immigrant residents.
Abhishek Kambli, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Holtzman Vogel, challenged the judge’s analysis in comments to Fox News Digital. Kambli argued that the city’s rules could harm federal authority even if state laws independently limit cooperation. He also said the administration’s argument was not necessarily that local officials should be required to assist ICE, but that local laws should not obstruct federal enforcement.
Kambli characterized the anti-commandeering principle as barring the federal government from forcing states to move from inaction to affirmative assistance. He argued that preventing obstruction is different from compelling local officials to participate in immigration operations. Those comments present his criticism of the ruling; the supplied account does not describe a separate appellate decision or a response from the Justice Department to that criticism.
The lawsuit also involved information-sharing and claims that the city placed special restrictions on federal immigration officers. The Justice Department argued that the city withheld information protected by federal law and treated immigration officials differently from other law enforcement agencies. Reyes found that the federal protections cited applied to information about a person’s citizenship or immigration status, not broader details such as custody status, release dates or whereabouts. He wrote that treating those details as immigration-status information was contrary to law.
Kambli said the dispute raised a wider question about whether federal law preempts local limits on cooperation, regardless of which information is withheld. The ruling follows dismissals of similar administration lawsuits involving Boston, Los Angeles and Minnesota, according to the source. It addresses the New York City case and does not, by itself, resolve the administration’s other challenges.
