A federal judge has dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit against four New Jersey sanctuary cities, ruling that the Justice Department lacked standing to challenge the local policies.
U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin of the District of New Jersey made the ruling on Wednesday, dismissing the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City and Paterson.
The lawsuit targeted the cities' sanctuary policies, which limit voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement and restrict information sharing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Padin ruled that the federal government's case has a fundamental flaw, treating the cities' policies as if they operate in isolation, when in fact they mirror a statewide immigration directive.
The New Jersey Immigrant Trust Directive, implemented in 2018, limits cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement beyond what the law requires, similar to the cities' policies.
The Trump administration argued that the cities' policies obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Padin, however, pointed out that the federal government failed to identify concrete injuries caused solely by the cities' policies, and that many of the same restrictions would remain in place even if the cities' policies were struck down.
The opinion also faulted the government for not addressing the question of whether the sanctuary policies are constitutional.
Padin dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, allowing the administration to potentially bring the case again if it can overcome the standing issue.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling.
The New Jersey cities have argued that their sanctuary policies preserve community trust and allow local police to focus on state and local crime rather than federal civil immigration enforcement.
The statewide directive has already survived multiple legal challenges, including a Third Circuit ruling upholding it against New Jersey counties' arguments that it conflicts with federal immigration law.
