In the years since the Trump administration first launched bold interior-immigration enforcement operations, cities across the U.S. have staged a sustained legal pushback against the federal government’s deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and related federal forces. What began as a strategy of coercing local cooperation has evolved into layered litigation, civic resistance, and a simmering appeal cycle whose next act remains unsettled.
The chain reaction of national legal bouts began on January 25, 2017, when President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which sought to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions”— cities or states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities—and gave ICE broad new enforcement priorities. Cities and states filed suit immediately. In November of 2017, a federal court declared the funding threat unconstitutional and issued a nationwide injunction. Over the next several years, federal appellate courts in the Third, Seventh, First, and Ninth Circuits repeatedly ruled against the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) efforts to condition Byrne JAG grants on local immigration enforcement cooperation. Both the Byrne JAG and Executive Order 13768 cases ultimately ended in the cities’ favor after the DOJ rescinded the policies in 2021. The Supreme Court then dismissed the government’s pending appeals, making those appellate rulings final and effectively closing that chapter of litigation.
While the grant-coercion cases dominated early years, they were complemented by increased federal presence in large sanctuary cities. In February of 2020, ICE and the Border Patrol’s tactical unit (BORTAC) were sent into cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco. Local officials decried the deployment as a threat to civil rights. The legal question that followed was: to what extent may the federal government deploy immigration-enforcement forces in states and cities that oppose them, and must localities cooperate?
In parallel, places such as New York State and New York City challenged ICE civil arrests at courthouses. In 2020, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York enjoined civil immigration arrests in or around court facilities, forcing the federal government to navigate a new local legal barrier. The state then passed the Protect Our Courts Act to shield state and local proceedings from ICE detainers. While not strictly a deployment case, the courthouse arrests illustrate how localities have used litigation and legislation to resist federal immigration operations.
By mid-2025, the legal landscape had evolved yet again. The administration filed a string of new suits: in May, it sued four New Jersey municipalities—Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City, and Paterson—alleging they obstruct federal immigration enforcement. In July, the Justice Department sued New York City for its sanctuary policies, claiming violations of the Supremacy Clause and obstructing ICE detainer requests. Meanwhile, in September, the administration turned its sights on Minnesota — suing the state, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin County. Still, the courts have pushed back against some of these efforts: in August 2025, a federal judge barred the administration from cutting funding to 34 sanctuary jurisdictions, expanding an earlier ruling that such conditional funding violated the Constitution.
What remains unsettled is that many of these new suits are in early stages. The 2025 filings in New Jersey, New York, and Minnesota are still working through district courts, and appeals have yet to definitively resolve the underlying disputes. Historically, cities won key decisions in the courts of appeals, such as Byrne JAG funding cases, but the current phase raises questions about federal deployment powers, local sovereignty, and the reach of the Supremacy Clause. If the district courts rule against the cities, the cases could move to the Second, Third, and Eighth Circuits, potentially setting up a new Supreme Court test on federal deployment powers.
While sanctuary policies remain constitutional in limiting local cooperation with ICE, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing localities into federal regulatory programs. At the same time, the federal government is arguing that non-cooperation amounts to obstruction of federal immigration enforcement — an argument whose fate will likely be tested in appellate courts and perhaps in the Supreme Court.
As these legal battles continue, the struggle between federal authority and local autonomy remains at the center of America’s immigration debate. From funding fights to courthouse arrests and new state lawsuits, each stage has tested how far the federal government can push and how firmly cities can resist. Whether the next chapter ends in settlement or a Supreme Court ruling, the outcome will define the boundaries of immigration enforcement and the power of states to chart their own course.
