A federal judge has thrown out the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle immigration-related policies adopted by four New Jersey cities, ruling that the lawsuit failed to account for the broader state framework governing cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The case, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2025, targeted Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken and Paterson. Federal officials argued that local policies in those municipalities obstructed immigration enforcement by limiting cooperation between city law enforcement agencies and federal immigration officers.
According to the government, the challenged measures restricted access to individuals held in local custody, curtailed the transfer of detainees to federal authorities, and prevented local officers from voluntarily sharing certain information with immigration agencies.
However, U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin concluded that the lawsuit rested on a critical misunderstanding of how those policies function. In a decision issued from Newark, the court observed that the municipal rules do not operate independently but exist within a statewide directive that has governed law-enforcement interaction with federal immigration authorities for years.
That statewide policy, issued by New Jersey’s attorney general in 2008, limits the extent to which law-enforcement agencies across the state may cooperate with immigration enforcement beyond what federal law expressly requires.
Because of that broader framework, the judge found that even a victory for the federal government against the four cities would not achieve the outcome sought by the lawsuit. Municipal officers would still remain bound by the state directive, meaning the alleged obstacles identified by the Justice Department would continue to exist regardless of the case’s result.
The ruling adds to a growing list of courtroom setbacks for the administration’s efforts to challenge so-called sanctuary policies adopted by Democratic-led jurisdictions across the country.
Local officials welcomed the dismissal. Jersey City Mayor James Solomon praised the decision and said the city would continue resisting what he described as excessive federal interference in local affairs. Paterson’s legal department also endorsed the outcome, maintaining that the city’s policies comply with federal law and that the court’s ruling reinforces its commitment to residents while remaining within legal boundaries.
The Justice Department had not publicly commented on the decision at the time of the ruling.
