NEWARK, N.J. – Two leading candidates in New Jersey’s 2025 gubernatorial race—Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka—are among the officials named in a new U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit accusing four cities of obstructing federal immigration enforcement through unlawful “sanctuary city” policies.
The Justice Department filed the complaint last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting that policies enacted in Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken intentionally block cooperation with federal authorities. Fulop and Baraka are both named in their official capacities as mayors, and their sanctuary directives are cited in detail as key components of what the DOJ calls a “systematic obstruction of federal immigration law.”
“These efforts to shield illegal aliens within the Garden State are unlawful,” the complaint reads. “By intent and design, the challenged policies are a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws and the federal authorities that administer them.”
Fulop and Baraka named as enforcers of blocked ICE access
Both Fulop and Baraka are running in the Democratic primary for governor, set for 2025, and have built their political brands in part on immigrant advocacy. Now, their past executive orders are at the center of a constitutional showdown with the Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney in New Jersey and the DOJ’s Civil Division in Washington.
The DOJ specifically cites Baraka’s 2017 executive order that bars Newark police from honoring ICE detainers or granting federal immigration officials access to city databases and jails without a criminal warrant. The directive prohibits cooperation with federal immigration operations unless compelled by law or court order.
In Jersey City, Fulop signed a similar order that designates the city as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The DOJ argues that this policy prevents ICE from receiving critical information about detained individuals’ immigration status or release dates, even in cases involving arrests for violent or repeat offenses.
Federal prosecutors allege that these sanctuary policies prevent ICE from taking custody of criminal aliens upon their release from local jails, forcing agents to pursue high-risk re-arrests in the community.
DOJ outlines constitutional claims and immigration law violations
The complaint, United States v. City of Newark et al., asserts that the cities’ policies violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and unlawfully discriminate against the federal government. It accuses the cities of barring cooperation even where federal law explicitly permits and expects it, such as sharing information on immigration status or honoring civil detainers.
The Justice Department says the policies not only conflict with statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and the recently passed Laken Riley Act, but also restrict local officials from voluntarily assisting federal enforcement—something the DOJ argues is protected by federal law.
“These are not academic issues,” the complaint says. “Defendants’ challenged policies are working precisely as intended. On the ground, they are impeding the ability of federal officers to do their job.”
The lawsuit details multiple recent cases where Essex County facilities, including in Newark, allegedly released individuals with ICE detainers lodged against them—individuals arrested for theft, assault, and domestic violence—without notifying federal authorities.
Political fallout looms as governors’ race heats up
While the lawsuit does not directly address the gubernatorial race, its implications for Fulop and Baraka’s campaigns are immediate. Both mayors have touted their sanctuary policies as models of progressive governance. The lawsuit, however, puts their executive records under legal scrutiny as federal officials seek to dismantle the very protections they championed.
Neither Fulop nor Baraka has publicly commented on the lawsuit since its filing, and neither city has issued a formal legal response.
The DOJ is asking the court to declare the sanctuary policies unconstitutional, block their enforcement, and award costs to the federal government. If granted, such a ruling would upend local immigration protocols in four of New Jersey’s largest cities and potentially reshape the state’s political narrative heading into the 2025 election.
The federal government’s legal challenge comes amid broader national debate over local non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities. While many large cities have adopted sanctuary policies over the past decade, the DOJ’s complaint marks one of the most direct legal confrontations in recent years—especially notable for its focus on candidates actively campaigning for statewide office.
