A major legal case from the Trump administration aimed at blocking “sanctuary” policies in Illinois has been dismissed by a federal judge.
The case involved the State of Illinois, Cook County, the City of Chicago, and several officials. The judge ruled that the federal government had no strong legal ground to continue the lawsuit.
What Was the Lawsuit About?
Back in February, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a 23-page complaint accusing Illinois and other local governments of breaking federal laws. The main issue was the sanctuary policies — rules that limit how much local police and officials cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The Trump administration claimed that these policies made it harder for immigration officers to do their jobs and accused the state of giving undocumented immigrants a “safe haven.”
Why the Judge Dismissed the Case
Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, dismissed the case on multiple grounds — including lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a valid legal claim.
In her detailed 64-page opinion, she explained that the federal immigration law (called the Immigration and Nationality Act or INA) does not force states to assist in immigration enforcement. States may choose to help, but they are not legally required to do so.
The Detainer Disagreement
One major issue in the case was the use of ICE “detainers.” These are requests from federal immigration officers asking local police to hold someone in jail a little longer so ICE can take custody.
However, Jenkins clarified that the INA only tells federal agents to issue detainers — it does not force states or local police to follow them. Illinois and Chicago, as part of their sanctuary policies, do not act on these detainer requests. According to the court, this is allowed under current federal law.
Dispute Over Information Sharing
The federal government also said Illinois was blocking access to important information about people in custody — such as release dates and contact details — which made it harder for ICE to act quickly.
But the judge pointed out that there is nothing in the INA that clearly says states must share this information. The law allows federal agents to do their job, but it does not require state or local governments to support them.
The Role of State Autonomy
Judge Jenkins strongly defended the right of states to make their own policies. She said forcing states to follow federal orders without choice goes against the Tenth Amendment, which protects state powers.
She wrote that the law in question stops local governments from making their own decisions and forces them to follow the will of federal officers. This, she said, “denigrates state autonomy” and harms democracy by removing local control.
She added that if states can’t decide how their employees communicate with the federal government, they also lose the right to choose not to take part in immigration enforcement — a key idea in the U.S. system of shared powers.
Final Decision and What Comes Next
The judge dismissed the case “without prejudice,” meaning the Trump administration can try again by rewriting the lawsuit and submitting it before August 22. However, based on this ruling, they will need much stronger arguments to succeed.
This ruling supports the idea that states like Illinois have the right to set their own immigration policies, as long as they don’t directly block federal officers from doing their jobs.
The court made it clear that cooperation with ICE is optional, not mandatory, under current federal law. This is a big win for local control and may affect similar cases across the country.
