TRENTON, N.J., May 24, 2025 — The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against four New Jersey cities—Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken—alleging their sanctuary city policies unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement. The civil suit, filed on May 23, 2025, in U.S. District Court in Newark, targets the cities’ local governments and their mayors—Ras Baraka (Newark), Steven Fulop (Jersey City), Andre Sayegh (Paterson), and Ravi Bhalla (Hoboken)—along with their respective city councils. The DOJ seeks a court judgment declaring these policies unlawful and an injunction to halt their enforcement.
The lawsuit claims that the sanctuary policies in these cities, which limit local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), violate the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by impeding federal immigration law enforcement. According to the DOJ, these policies “deny federal immigration agents access to illegal aliens in local custody, restrict local officers’ ability to hand over illegal aliens to federal agents, and bar otherwise willing local officers from providing mission-critical information to federal immigration authorities.” The Trump administration, which initiated the suit, argues that while local governments can opt not to assist federal efforts, they cannot actively obstruct them.
Sanctuary city policies, though not officially defined, generally involve limited cooperation with ICE, such as prohibiting local police from sharing information about detainees’ immigration status or release dates. New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive, adopted in 2018 by the state’s attorney general, further restricts local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration officials, a policy the sued cities have aligned with.
Local Leaders Push Back
The mayors of the four cities, all Democrats, have vowed to fight the lawsuit, defending their policies as protecting community safety and constitutional rights. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, recently arrested for trespassing outside an ICE facility (charges later dropped), called the lawsuit “absurd,” stating, “We are not standing in the way of public safety. We are upholding the Constitution, providing oversight, and following the laws and guidelines of the State of New Jersey.” He emphasized that Newark’s policies do not prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs but refuse to turn the city into “an arm of federal immigration enforcement,” a role courts have ruled is not required of local governments.
Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla, who signed an executive order in 2018 declaring Hoboken a “fair and welcoming city,” said, “Hoboken is a community that prides itself on its vibrancy, its cultural diversity, and its inclusivity, and we will continue to stand together as a community for what is fair and just. The City of Hoboken will vigorously work to defend our rights, have our day in court, and defeat the Trump Administration’s lawlessness.”
Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, a Democratic candidate for governor, dismissed the lawsuit as political posturing, saying, “Jersey City’s policies protect families, reflect our values, and have led to record low crime rates. As governor, I won’t be bullied. We’ll fight this—and win.” Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh called the suit an “egregious attempt to score political points at Paterson’s expense” and affirmed his city’s intent to challenge it.
Broader Implications
The lawsuit is part of a broader Trump administration push to crack down on sanctuary policies, with similar legal actions filed against cities like Chicago, Denver, and Rochester, New York, and the state of Colorado. The DOJ’s actions signal a coordinated effort to enforce uniform immigration policies nationwide, raising questions about federal versus local authority. Critics argue that sanctuary policies protect vulnerable communities and foster trust with law enforcement, while supporters of the DOJ’s stance claim they undermine national security and immigration enforcement.
For New Jersey, the lawsuit could impact more than just immigration policy. Newark, a major airline hub, and Jersey City and Hoboken, popular destinations due to their proximity to New York City, are key players in the state’s tourism and travel industry. Paterson, known for its cultural heritage, also attracts visitors. The legal battle could affect perceptions of urban safety and hospitality, potentially influencing tourism confidence.
What’s Next?
As the case heads to court, the cities face a choice: stand firm on their sanctuary policies or seek a legal compromise to avoid prolonged federal pressure. The outcome could set a precedent for other sanctuary cities nationwide and shape the balance of power between federal and local governments. The DOJ has hinted at further litigation, with a statement noting, “This Justice Department does not tolerate local officials in sanctuary cities obstructing immigration enforcement: there is more litigation to come.”
The mayors remain defiant, framing the lawsuit as an attack on their communities’ values. “We will not be intimidated,” Sayegh said. Meanwhile, the travel industry, regional tourism boards, and local businesses are bracing for potential ripple effects as the legal and political showdown unfolds.