Federal Judge Tosses DOJ Lawsuit Targeting Four New Jersey Sanctuary Cities
A federal judge on Wednesday, June 24, 2026 dismissed the Justice Department's 2025 lawsuit against Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City and Paterson, leaving their sanctuary-style policies intact.[1]
U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin held that the DOJ lacked standing because New Jersey's statewide Immigrant Trust Directive independently limits local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.[1] Padin said removing the cities' policies would not redress the government's complaint, so the court dismissed the case without resolving the constitutional challenge to the policies.[1]
In November 2018, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal issued the Immigrant Trust Directive, which limited state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. The Trump administration sued New Jersey over the directive during his first term, but a federal judge dismissed that suit and the Third Circuit upheld the directive in 2021.
After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department filed a new suit in May 2025 against Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City and Paterson, alleging their sanctuary-style rules violated the Supremacy Clause.[1] In early 2026, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed legislation that codified the 2018 directive into state law.
The directive applies to roughly 41,000 state, county and local law enforcement officers as of 2026, so Padin's decision preserves statewide limits on voluntary assistance to federal immigration authorities. Padin's order leaves the larger constitutional question unresolved.[1]
The mainstream summary emphasizes the dismissal of the DOJ lawsuit but does not delve into the implications of the ruling regarding the Immigrant Trust Directive, which limits the cooperation of approximately 41,000 law enforcement officers with federal immigration authorities. This directive is crucial, as it underpins the legal framework that supports the sanctuary policies of Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City, and Paterson, a point that is notably absent from the mainstream account. The ruling by Judge Padin not only affirms the cities' policies but also highlights the broader legal context that protects them, suggesting that even if the DOJ had succeeded, the underlying state law would still pose a significant barrier to federal enforcement efforts. This aspect underscores the complexities of the legal landscape surrounding sanctuary cities, which the mainstream narrative simplifies.
Additionally, the mainstream coverage does not mention the historical context of the Immigrant Trust Directive, which has already been upheld in previous legal challenges, nor does it address the implications of the anti-commandeering doctrine that prevents federal mandates on state and local officials. This legal principle is critical in understanding why such sanctuary policies have persisted despite federal opposition. The Congressional Research Service notes that this doctrine allows jurisdictions to prioritize local resources and maintain community trust, a nuance that enriches the discussion around sanctuary cities and their legal standing.[2][3]
Show source details & analysis (1 source)
📊 Relevant Data
The New Jersey Immigrant Trust Directive applies to approximately 41,000 state, county, and local law enforcement officers statewide and limits the voluntary assistance they may provide to federal immigration authorities.
Immigrant Trust — New Jersey Office of Attorney General
📌 Key Facts
- On Wednesday, June 24, 2026, Judge Evelyn Padin dismissed DOJ's 2025 lawsuit against Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City and Paterson.
- Padin held DOJ lacked standing because New Jersey's statewide Immigrant Trust Directive independently imposes similar limits on ICE cooperation.
- The ruling leaves New Jersey's sanctuary-style framework intact and does not resolve the underlying constitutional challenge to the cities' policies.
📰 Source Timeline (1)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time