Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Lawsuit Challenging NYC Sanctuary Laws

A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against New York City’s sanctuary policies on Thursday, October 15, 2026, dealing another setback to the Justice Department’s efforts to challenge local restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration authorities. U.S. District Judge Ramón E. Reyes Jr. ruled that the government lacked standing to bring the case and described its legal arguments as a "backdoor around the Tenth Amendment."

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in July 2025, arguing that New York City’s sanctuary laws unlawfully limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration officials. The case forms part of the Trump administration’s broader campaign against sanctuary jurisdictions that restrict assistance to federal immigration enforcement.

The ruling means New York City’s challenged policies remain in place. Mayor Zohran Mamdani welcomed the decision in a Friday post on X, accusing the administration of trying to turn city employees into immigration enforcement agents.

"The federal government tried to turn our public servants into deportation agents and force New York City to carry out ICE’s cruel agenda. Today, a federal court rejected that effort and upheld our laws. Every New Yorker deserves to seek help from their city without fear of being targeted for deportation. We will stand by our immigrant neighbors, defend our laws and protect the promise that this city belongs to all of us," Mamdani wrote.

Why The Federal Judge Dismissed The NYC Sanctuary Lawsuit

Reyes determined that the federal government lacked standing to challenge New York City’s restrictions on honoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers. He reasoned that striking down the city’s provisions would not resolve the government’s alleged injury because separate New York state laws would continue to restrict cooperation.

Abhishek Kambli, a former federal prosecutor and partner at Holtzman Vogel, disagreed with the judge’s reasoning. He argued that the city’s laws independently affect federal authority, regardless of whether state-level restrictions also exist.

"The sovereign harm is done just by the fact that New York City has the law in the books, no matter what other factors prevent practical application of the United States's position," Kambli told Fox News.

Reyes also rejected the Justice Department’s argument that federal immigration law overrides the city’s sanctuary policies.

"Even if the United States has standing — and it does not — its preemption claims fail," Reyes wrote. "All of the United States’ preemption claims — express, conflict and field — fail because the relevant federal statutes do not regulate private actors."

The judge cited the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, which limits the federal government’s ability to require state and local governments to deploy their officials and resources to implement federal programs.

"If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, which is within states’ constitutional prerogatives, the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine means nothing," Reyes wrote.

Kambli argued that the judge’s interpretation blurred the distinction between requiring local officials to assist federal immigration enforcement and stopping them from interfering with federal operations.

"Really what the 10th Amendment anti-commandeering means is you can't force states to go from doing nothing to affirmatively assisting. What these statutes are doing is basically preventing states from actively obstructing federal immigration enforcement," Kambli said.

He maintained that the Justice Department was seeking to prevent local laws from interfering with federal enforcement powers, rather than compel city officials to participate in ICE operations.

"That's different from the federal government saying a state or a city is required to actively assist ICE in operations," Kambli said.

Federal Judge Rejects Trump Administration's ICE Information-Sharing Claims

The Justice Department also argued that New York City’s sanctuary policies restrict information-sharing with ICE that federal law protects. The administration further contended that the city imposed restrictions on federal immigration officials that did not apply to other law enforcement agencies.

Reyes rejected the information-sharing argument, finding that federal protections cover information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status but do not require local governments to disclose broader custody-related details, including release dates and whereabouts.

"The United States’ assertion that information regarding release dates and custody status is information regarding immigration or citizenship status is contrary to law," Reyes wrote.

Kambli argued that the dispute extends beyond the specific categories of information withheld by city officials.

"The issue is mainly whether any state or locality that prohibits cooperation is preempted by federal law, regardless of what the information is," Kambli said.

Trump Administration Faces Continued Legal Challenges Over Sanctuary Policies

The dismissal adds to the legal challenges facing the Trump administration as it seeks to invalidate sanctuary policies that limit cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials. Similar lawsuits involving other jurisdictions, including Boston, Los Angeles and Minnesota, have also been dismissed.

New York City’s restrictions remain in effect following Reyes’ decision. The ruling rejects the Justice Department’s claims in this case and reinforces the limits federal authorities face when attempting to require local governments to participate in immigration enforcement.