Staff Reports
A significant legal battle is brewing as the Department of Justice (DOJ) has decided to take action against the state of Illinois, Cook County, and the city of Chicago. The DOJ filed a lawsuit on February 6, 2025, challenging sanctuary policies that they believe are interfering with federal authorities’ ability to enforce immigration laws. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate state and local laws, including the Way Forward Act, the TRUST Act, Chicago’s Welcoming City Act, and Cook County Ordinance 11-O-73. The DOJ argues that these policies impede the federal government’s ability to carry out its immigration enforcement activities.
The lawsuit names several officials as defendants, including Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart. The DOJ claims that under these laws, state officers are explicitly prohibited from complying with immigration detainers or civil immigration warrants and are prevented from entering into agreements to detain non-citizens for federal civil immigration violations.
The legal action was filed in a federal district court in northern Illinois and has been assigned to Judge Lindsay Jenkins, an appointee of President Joe Biden. This lawsuit comes a day after the Senate confirmed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who on her first day issued a memo restricting sanctuary cities from accessing Justice Department funds.
The DOJ argues that the challenged laws make it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in these jurisdictions. They claim that the Department of Homeland Security cannot readily obtain information from local law enforcement about the release dates of individuals they believe are removable from the United States.
This lawsuit is reminiscent of a similar case during the first Trump administration when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California over its sanctuary policies. In that case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s policies did not impede enforcement of federal immigration law, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case.
The current situation highlights the ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement efforts and local sanctuary policies. While federal officials argue these policies obstruct their work, supporters of sanctuary laws maintain that they clarify that the federal government cannot compel state or local jurisdictions to use their resources to assist in enforcing immigration laws.
