NEWARK, N.J. – The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against four major New Jersey cities and their leaders, claiming their so-called “sanctuary” policies unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, targets the cities of Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken — as well as their mayors, city councils, and police departments — over longstanding policies that federal prosecutors say intentionally hinder the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The lawsuit alleges that these municipalities have adopted ordinances, executive orders, and police procedures that restrict local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including bans on honoring ICE detainers, barring access to jails, and refusing to share information on the immigration status of individuals in custody.
“These efforts to shield illegal aliens within the Garden State are unlawful,” the complaint states. “The express purpose and clear effect of these policies is to thwart federal immigration enforcement.”
Federal government outlines broad legal claims
The 85-page filing lays out three legal claims under the Supremacy Clause. First, it argues that the cities’ policies create an obstacle to federal immigration law. Second, it claims that these policies unlawfully discriminate against federal immigration officials. Finally, the lawsuit contends that the local policies amount to direct regulation of the federal government — a violation of constitutional doctrine.
Federal prosecutors cited specific examples from each city. Newark’s executive order prohibits police from honoring ICE detainers unless accompanied by a judicial warrant and bars immigration agents from accessing municipal facilities without court orders. Jersey City, Hoboken, and Paterson have similar orders that ban city employees and police from sharing information with ICE or cooperating in civil immigration enforcement operations.
The federal government emphasized that these local policies impede DHS’s ability to detain and remove individuals who are already in local custody, often forcing ICE to locate and arrest such individuals in more dangerous circumstances later.
“Sanctuary” cities accused of obstructing lawful immigration operations
In a section of the complaint titled The Impact of the Challenged Policies on Federal Immigration Enforcement, DOJ attorneys argue that the policies adopted by the four cities result in tangible harm.
The filing states that ICE and CBP officers face “serious operational consequences” as they are denied access to individuals in local jails, even in cases involving criminal aliens with prior convictions for theft, assault, or domestic violence. It cites recent incidents at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark where multiple individuals were released despite ICE detainers being lodged against them.
The complaint highlights that, under federal law, ICE is allowed to issue civil administrative warrants and immigration detainers, and that cooperation between local and federal law enforcement is supported by multiple statutes, including 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1231, 1357, and 1373.
The Justice Department claims that by prohibiting even voluntary communication and access, these cities are creating a “patchwork of obstruction” that directly conflicts with federal law and policy.
Officials named in sweeping complaint
The lawsuit names not only the municipalities themselves but also individual public officials in their official capacities, including Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, Paterson Mayor André Sayegh, and Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla. City council presidents for each municipality are also listed.
The complaint argues that the cities’ legislative and executive arms have jointly enacted and enforced these policies, which the federal government says “discriminate against the federal government” by targeting ICE and CBP for uniquely unfavorable treatment.
The complaint also refers to public statements made by officials. For example, it quotes Mayor Bhalla as recently affirming Hoboken’s refusal to cooperate with ICE “if they come to our city without warrants signed by a federal judge,” despite federal law not requiring such warrants for immigration enforcement actions.
Legal context and federal enforcement background
The lawsuit grounds its legal argument in longstanding constitutional principles. The Supremacy Clause, under Article VI of the Constitution, provides that federal law takes precedence over state and local measures that conflict with it. The complaint cites multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions — including Arizona v. United States (2012) — that affirm the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration matters.
It also references the newly enacted Laken Riley Act, signed into law in January, which requires federal authorities to detain illegal aliens charged with certain crimes upon their release from local custody. The Justice Department argues that local policies directly undercut the implementation of that statute by preventing federal agents from being notified or present at the time of release.
The Department of Justice is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, it is asking the court to declare the sanctuary policies unconstitutional, bar the cities and their officials from enforcing them, and award costs and fees associated with the litigation.
Federal-state showdown over immigration policy intensifies
The lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement and the rights of local governments to set their own policies. While sanctuary policies have been the subject of political and legal battles for years, this case represents one of the most comprehensive federal challenges to date.
DOJ officials assert that the Constitution does not allow local governments to stand in the way of federal immigration operations. “Federal law does not tolerate that sort of obstruction,” the complaint says.
None of the defendants named in the suit have yet responded publicly to the filing. The case, titled United States v. City of Newark et al., is assigned to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under docket number 2:25-cv-5081.
