A federal judge ruled the Justice Department cannot force Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, and Paterson to change their local immigration policies because New Jersey’s statewide directive would remain in effect even if the cities’ policies were struck down.
A federal judge has dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit challenging the immigration policies of four New Jersey cities, ruling that the Justice Department failed to establish that the court could provide the relief it was seeking.
U.S. District Judge Evelyn Padin dismissed the lawsuit Tuesday against Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, and Paterson without prejudice, allowing the federal government to refile if it can demonstrate a basis for standing. Padin was appointed by former President Joe Biden.
The Justice Department argued that the cities’ so-called sanctuary policies unlawfully interfered with federal immigration enforcement by limiting cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
State directive became central to the ruling
Judge Padin concluded that the federal government’s case overlooked a key legal obstacle: New Jersey’s statewide Immigrant Trust Directive.
The directive, issued by the New Jersey Attorney General, independently limits how state and local law enforcement agencies may assist with federal civil immigration enforcement. Because that statewide policy was not challenged in the lawsuit, the court found that striking down the municipal policies would not provide the practical relief the federal government sought.
“The Federal Government’s case has a fundamental flaw—it treats the Challenged Policies as though they operate in isolation. They do not,” Padin wrote.
The judge found that municipal police officers would remain bound by the statewide directive even if the local ordinances and executive orders were invalidated.
Court says government lacked standing
Rather than deciding whether the cities’ policies violate federal law, the court ruled the Justice Department lacked Article III standing because it could not show its alleged injuries would likely be remedied through the lawsuit.
Padin wrote that “a favorable decision would provide no concrete relief” where the same restrictions would continue under the statewide directive.
The opinion also noted that the federal government previously challenged New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive in separate litigation and was unsuccessful.
Because the dismissal was based on standing, the court did not reach the merits of the Justice Department’s constitutional claims.
Lawsuit dismissed without prejudice
The dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility that the Justice Department could bring a new lawsuit if it can allege facts showing a concrete injury that a court could remedy.
The opinion noted that the federal government identified only a handful of examples involving Essex County Correctional Facility, which is operated by the county and was not a defendant in the lawsuit. The court concluded those examples did not establish injuries attributable to the four municipalities.
The ruling was welcomed by supporters of New Jersey’s immigration policies, who have argued that limiting local participation in civil immigration enforcement helps foster trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
Key Points
- A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, and Paterson over their immigration policies.
- The court ruled that New Jersey’s statewide Immigrant Trust Directive would remain in effect even if the cities’ policies were struck down, preventing the court from providing the relief sought.
- The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the Justice Department to file a new case if it can establish standing.
