CHICAGO — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that aimed to halt the enforcement of Illinois’ sanctuary policies, which limit local officials’ collaboration with federal immigration enforcement. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, was a significant win for the state, which had argued that the Trump administration lacked standing to challenge the regulations.
In her 64-page ruling, Judge Jenkins, appointed by President Joe Biden, stated that Illinois’ sanctuary laws are protected under the 10th Amendment. This amendment specifies that powers not expressly granted to the federal government or forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Jenkins noted that the sanctuary policies reflect Illinois’ decision to refrain from enforcing federal immigration laws, which is permissible under the Constitution.
The ruling emphasized that allowing the federal government to intervene would circumvent the protections afforded to states by the 10th Amendment. Jenkins remarked that such an action could lead to a scenario where the federal government could commandeer state officials under the pretense of intergovernmental immunity, a situation that is expressly barred by the 10th Amendment.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker expressed satisfaction with the dismissal, stating it helps ensure that state law enforcement does not engage in what he called “unlawful policies or troubling tactics” endorsed by the Trump administration. He reaffirmed that Illinois would assist federal authorities when they operate within the law but would not comply with what he viewed as violations of it.
The Trump administration’s lawsuit, filed in February, targeted Illinois and Cook County, which encompasses Chicago. The government argued that the state policies obstructed federal immigration enforcement operations. This lawsuit marked the first attempt by the administration to legally challenge sanctuary jurisdictions, which is a term used for areas that adopt measures to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The administration claimed that provisions within Illinois and Chicago laws aimed to inhibit communication between local and federal law enforcement, which is necessary for enforcing immigration laws. The Justice Department contended that these policies hindered attempts to keep communities safe by obstructing the government’s ability to carry out its duties.
This case is part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to confront sanctuary jurisdictions across the nation. Recently, lawsuits were also filed against New York City and New York state, targeting their respective immigration policies. These actions signify a continuing conflict over immigration enforcement policies, particularly in Democratic-led states that advocate for more lenient immigration practices.
In addition to these lawsuits, the Trump administration has pursued measures to restrict federal funding for regions labeled as sanctuary jurisdictions. An executive order issued in January directed the Justice Department and Homeland Security to consider potential civil or criminal penalties against localities that interfere with federal immigration enforcement. However, a federal judge blocked an earlier attempt to withhold funds, citing violations of constitutional principles.
The Justice Department did not release a statement in response to the ruling.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.