Chicago Sanctuary Policies Upheld as Federal Judge Rejects Trump DOJ Lawsuit
Sarah Johnson
July 26, 2025
Brief
Federal judge in Chicago dismisses Trump DOJ lawsuit against sanctuary policies, affirming local autonomy over federal immigration enforcement mandates.
In a significant setback for the Trump administration's hardline stance on immigration, a federal judge in Chicago has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the city's sanctuary policies. Judge Lindsay Jenkins, ruling from the Northern District of Illinois, upheld the legality of Chicago’s ordinances, declaring them as lawful protections that do not bow to federal enforcement mandates.
The core of this legal battle revolves around sanctuary policies, which limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The Trump Justice Department argued that such measures in Illinois and Chicago obstruct their aggressive deportation agenda, claiming these local laws violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. However, Judge Jenkins countered that states hold substantial powers not explicitly ceded to the federal government, emphasizing that forcing compliance would undermine the Tenth Amendment.
Chicago’s Stand on Sanctuary
Chicago has long stood as a bastion for immigrant rights, with its City Council passing the Welcoming City Ordinance in 2012 to prevent city agencies from aiding federal immigration enforcement. This stance was reinforced by the state’s TRUST Act in 2017. Mayor Brandon Johnson celebrated the ruling, asserting that Chicago is safer when police prioritize local needs over federal immigration crackdowns. He called the Trump administration’s approach 'reckless and inhumane,' a sentiment echoing through many Democrat-led jurisdictions.
This ruling is just one chapter in a broader conflict, as the Trump administration has launched similar lawsuits against other sanctuary cities like New York City, Los Angeles, and several in New Jersey. Attorney General Pam Bondi has framed these legal actions as necessary to protect citizens, but the Chicago decision may signal tough battles ahead for the federal government’s immigration agenda.
As this legal tug-of-war unfolds, the deeper issue remains: how do we balance federal authority with local autonomy, especially on an issue as divisive as immigration? For now, Chicago stands firm, a welcoming city in the face of federal opposition.
Topics
Editor's Comments
Well, looks like Chicago just told the Trump administration, 'You can’t deport our hospitality!' This ruling isn’t just a legal win; it’s a masterclass in local defiance. While the feds are busy building walls, Chicago’s building bridges—figuratively, at least. Wonder if the next Trump lawsuit will come with a 'Welcome Mat' cease-and-desist? Beyond the headlines, though, let’s not ignore the real tension: how many more cities will play this high-stakes game of legal chicken before we get a national immigration policy that actually works?
Like this article? Share it with your friends!
If you find this article interesting, feel free to share it with your friends!
Thank you for your support! Sharing is the greatest encouragement for us.
