What legal challenges have federal governments brought against sanctuary cities since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 the federal government has reignited a multi-pronged legal campaign against so‑called sanctuary jurisdictions that includes civil lawsuits asking courts to invalidate local and state restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration authorities, efforts to condition or cut federal funds to jurisdictions identified as “sanctuary,” publication of a formal federal list of such jurisdictions, and related executive‑branch directives; those actions have been met by sharp legal pushback invoking the Tenth Amendment, anti‑commandeering doctrine, and prior precedents that have sometimes produced injunctions or defeats for the federal government [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Federal lawsuits seeking to overturn local “sanctuary” laws and policies
The Justice Department under the current administration has filed a series of civil suits aimed at local and state sanctuary measures — including high‑profile complaints against Los Angeles (filed June 30, 2025), New York City (filed July 24, 2025), and a host of other jurisdictions named in DOJ statements such as New York State, Colorado, Illinois, Rochester, and several New Jersey cities — asserting that those policies unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement and are preempted by federal law [2] [1].
2. Efforts to withhold or condition federal funding and the parallel executive orders
Federal strategy has not been limited to litigation: executive orders directing agencies to identify and punish sanctuary jurisdictions and public statements about cutting federal payments have accompanied DOJ suits, and the administration published a “list” of jurisdictions alleged to impede immigration enforcement as a tool to guide enforcement or funding decisions [3] [4] [6].
3. Legal defenses by cities and courts leaning on anti‑commandeering and prior precedent
Local governments and advocacy groups have mounted both defensive litigation and public campaigns, relying on constitutional limits such as the Tenth Amendment and anti‑commandeering doctrine; legal scholars and organizations including the Brennan Center argue federal coercion or funding cutoffs are unconstitutional, and courts have previously blocked similar federal measures — notably the San Francisco‑led challenges that produced permanent injunctions during earlier rounds of litigation and remain a touchstone in current disputes [5] [7] [4].
4. Mixed judicial results and procedural complications since 2020
The judicial response since 2020 has been mixed: some federal judges have blocked attempts to withhold funds or limited enforcement — for example a preliminary injunction preserved funding in San Francisco v. Trump — while other suits launched by the federal government remain pending or have been dismissed in part, and one recent ruling tossed an administration lawsuit challenging Illinois law; the Supreme Court’s limitations on nationwide injunctions also mean plaintiffs must join to obtain broad relief, complicating the litigation landscape [4] [8] [9] [6].
5. Scope and tactics: who’s being sued and what the government asks for
DOJ complaints explicitly target both city and state officials and typically seek declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate local statutes, ordinances, or policies that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and administrative steps such as the publication of sanctuary lists and threatened funding suspensions are being used in tandem with civil suits to pressure jurisdictions [1] [2] [3].
6. Broader legal and political stakes driving the renewed litigation
The renewed campaign is shaped by political directives from the White House and Attorney General offices to “restore enforcement,” and by local resistance that frames sanctuary policies as matters of local governance and public‑safety strategy; legal commentators note this sets up recurring constitutional clashes over federal power, state sovereignty, and the permissible use of conditional funding as leverage [3] [10] [5].
7. Current status and what to watch next
As of the latest reporting, multiple DOJ suits are active across states and cities while coalitions of municipalities have joined defensive suits seeking injunctions — outcomes hinge on how district courts, the appeals courts, and potentially the Supreme Court reconcile preemption and supremacy arguments with anti‑commandeering and coercion precedents, and whether the administration can effectively pair litigation with enforceable funding actions [9] [1] [4].