U.S. sues New Jersey over immigration order, escalating fight over federal enforcement powers

Lawsuit will test how far states can go in limiting cooperation with federal agents

In simple terms

The federal government says New Jersey is making it harder for immigration agents to do their jobs, while state leaders say they are simply setting rules for how state property can be used. A federal court will now decide who has the final say.

Why this matters for New Jersey

The outcome could affect how immigration enforcement happens in places people interact with every day, including courthouses, state offices, and correctional facilities. It may also shape how safe immigrant families feel accessing public services, and how much control New Jersey has over how its own property and resources are used.

The U.S. Department of Justice has sued the state of New Jersey and Gov. Mikie Sherrill, accusing state officials of unlawfully obstructing federal immigration enforcement and setting up a major constitutional battle over how far states can go in limiting cooperation with federal authorities.

The lawsuit, filed Sunday in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, challenges Executive Order No. 12, signed earlier this month by Sherrill. The order restricts federal immigration agents from entering nonpublic areas of state-owned property or using those facilities as staging or operational sites without judicial authorization.

Federal officials argue immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and say the policy interferes with their ability to carry out the law.

“The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits a state from usurping Congress,” the complaint states, describing the order as “deliberate action that jeopardizes the public safety of all Americans.”

Justice Department targets sanctuary policies

The lawsuit is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to challenge so-called sanctuary policies adopted by Democratic-led states and cities.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi said the federal government intends to continue filing similar cases nationwide.

“Federal agents are risking their lives to keep New Jersey citizens safe, and yet New Jersey’s leaders are enacting policies designed to obstruct and endanger law enforcement,” Bondi said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “States may not deliberately interfere with our efforts to remove illegal aliens and arrest criminals. New Jersey’s sanctuary policies will not stand.”

The executive order prevents Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from conducting secure arrests inside nonpublic areas of state property, including correctional facilities. According to the department, that could result in “individuals convicted of crimes, including aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking,” being released instead of transferred to federal custody.

Federal officials said the lawsuit follows earlier litigation targeting sanctuary policies in jurisdictions including New York, Minnesota, and Los Angeles.

Federal claims of obstruction

In the complaint, federal attorneys argue New Jersey’s order creates a “blanket prohibition” preventing immigration officers from accessing nonpublic state facilities or using them as “a ‘staging area, processing location, or operations base’ to enforce civil immigration law.”

The federal government contends the restrictions single out immigration authorities while allowing other law enforcement agencies continued access.

“The sole reason for the exclusionary treatment of federal immigration agents enforcing our Nation’s federal immigration laws is New Jersey’s disagreement with the substance of the laws written by Congress,” the filing states. “

Federal officials argue the limits could make arrests more dangerous. The lawsuit says controlled environments, such as courthouses or correctional facilities, allow officers to safely take people into custody. Without access to those spaces, agents may have to conduct arrests in public settings.

When cooperation is denied, the complaint says, ICE must conduct “at-large arrests in local communities,” which are “unpredictable and can be dangerous to the public, aliens and federal law enforcement officers.”

The filing also argues the order undermines immigration detainers, federal requests that allow officers to assume custody of individuals already being held by local authorities. Without access to secure facilities, agents cannot take individuals into custody “in the facility’s safe setting,” according to the complaint.

New Jersey pushes back

New Jersey officials rejected the federal government’s claims and said they intend to defend the order in court.

“Instead of working with us to promote public safety and protect our state’s residents, the Trump Administration is wasting its resources on a pointless legal challenge to Governor Sherrill’s executive order,” Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said in a statement. “Under Governor Sherrill’s leadership, New Jersey will continue to ensure the safety of our state’s immigrant communities. We look forward to defending this executive order in court.”

State leaders have said the policy is intended to protect residents and ensure state resources are not used to carry out federal civil immigration enforcement without judicial oversight.

Federal attorneys argue those statements show the order was designed specifically to hinder federal enforcement rather than regulate state property neutrally.

A constitutional test

The case centers on the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which establishes that federal law overrides conflicting state laws.

The Justice Department argues New Jersey’s policy “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” and must therefore be invalidated.”

The lawsuit also invokes the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, arguing the order unlawfully discriminates against federal immigration authorities by imposing restrictions not applied to other agencies: “The Executive Order singles out federal immigration officials … for unfavorable and uncooperative treatment when no other member of the public or law enforcement is so treated,” the complaint states. “

The Justice Department is asking the court to declare the executive order unconstitutional and permanently block its enforcement, while awarding costs and fees to the U.S. government.