The Claim

Filed multiple lawsuits against states and cities obstructing federal immigration law.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

Two factual components: (1) the administration filed lawsuits; (2) the targets were states and cities that were “obstructing” federal immigration law. The word “multiple” is vague but implies more than two.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That the lawsuits were meritorious — that the states and cities were genuinely “obstructing” federal law, not simply declining to participate in federal enforcement. That the litigation was successful or is on track to succeed. That these lawsuits represent a meaningful enforcement achievement. That the states and cities were doing something illegal rather than exercising constitutionally protected discretion.

What is conspicuously absent?

Any mention of outcomes. By March 2026, the administration’s record in this litigation is notably poor: the first and most prominent lawsuit (Illinois/Chicago) was dismissed in its entirety. The Rochester lawsuit was also dismissed. Multiple federal judges have blocked the companion strategy of withholding funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. Any acknowledgment of the anti-commandeering doctrine — the established constitutional principle, articulated by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in Printz v. United States, that the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal regulatory programs. The word “obstructing” does significant rhetorical work: declining to assist with federal enforcement is not the same as obstruction, and courts have repeatedly drawn this distinction. Any mention that this is an “action” claim — the filing of lawsuits — not an “outcome” claim, and the phrasing obscures the fact that filing a lawsuit is merely an assertion, not a victory. Any mention of the cost to federal taxpayers of this litigation campaign.

Relationship to Items #42 and #45

This claim is part of a cluster of sanctuary-related claims:

• Item #42 addresses sanctuary city funding cuts — the financial pressure track. The administration threatened to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions that declined to cooperate with ICE. This strategy has been repeatedly blocked by federal courts, including a broad injunction from Judge William Orrick protecting over 30 jurisdictions.
• Item #44 (this claim) addresses the litigation track — lawsuits filed against specific jurisdictions.
• Item #45 addresses the operational track — ICE enforcement operations conducted inside sanctuary cities despite local non-cooperation.

All three are components of a single strategy to pressure sanctuary jurisdictions into cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The White House lists them as three separate “wins” to inflate the count, though they represent different facets of the same policy objective — and one that has largely been unsuccessful in the courts.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

The administration did file multiple lawsuits against states and cities over sanctuary policies. The Department of Justice, at the direction of Attorney General Pamela Bondi, has filed lawsuits against more than a dozen jurisdictions since January 2025. The documented lawsuits include: [^044-a1]

Defendant	Date Filed	Court	Status (as of March 2026)
Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, Gov. Pritzker	February 2025	N.D. Illinois	Dismissed (July 25, 2025)
Rochester, NY	April 24, 2025	W.D. New York	Dismissed (November 2025); refiled December 2025, pending new dismissal motion
Colorado, Denver	May 2, 2025	D. Colorado	Pending
Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, Hoboken (NJ)	May 22, 2025	D. New Jersey	Pending
Los Angeles, Mayor Bass, City Council	June 30, 2025	C.D. California	Pending
New York City, Mayor Adams	July 24, 2025	E.D. New York	Pending
Boston, Mayor Wu, Police Dept.	September 4, 2025	D. Massachusetts	Pending
Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County	September 30, 2025	D. Minnesota	Pending
New Jersey (state), Gov. Sherrill	February 24, 2026	D. New Jersey	Pending

This constitutes at least nine separate lawsuits involving at least 20 named defendants across seven federal judicial districts. The claim that “multiple lawsuits” were filed is factually accurate. [^044-a2]

The DOJ published a formal list of 35 sanctuary jurisdictions on August 5, 2025. Executive Order 14287, “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens” (April 28, 2025), directed the DOJ and DHS to publish a list of jurisdictions whose policies “impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.” The list identified 13 states, 4 counties, and 18 cities. DHS had previously published a much larger list of 500+ jurisdictions in May 2025 before removing it. Attorney General Bondi sent warning letters to nearly all listed jurisdictions, giving them days to explain how they would dismantle sanctuary policies. [^044-a3]

The lawsuits rely primarily on two legal theories: Supremacy Clause preemption and intergovernmental immunity. The DOJ argues that state and local sanctuary policies are preempted by federal immigration law because they conflict with federal statutes, particularly 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 (prohibiting restrictions on sharing immigration status information) and 8 U.S.C. Section 1644. The administration also invokes intergovernmental immunity — the principle that states cannot discriminate against the federal government’s operations. [^044-a4]

The first lawsuit (Illinois) was dismissed in its entirety on July 25, 2025. U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins (N.D. Illinois) granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the United States lacked standing to sue over sanctuary policies. Judge Jenkins held that the Tenth Amendment protects states’ decisions not to participate in federal immigration enforcement, writing that allowing the government’s theory would “allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity — the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.” The court also found that 8 U.S.C. Sections 1373 and 1644, which pertain only “to information regarding a person’s legal classification under federal law,” do not preempt state laws covering “contact information, custody status, [and] release date.” The case was dismissed without prejudice. [^044-a5]

The Rochester lawsuit was also dismissed (November 2025). U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci (W.D. New York) dismissed the case without prejudice after the city amended the specific policies the DOJ had challenged, rendering the complaint moot. The DOJ refiled a nearly identical complaint in December 2025; Rochester has moved to dismiss again. [^044-a6]

Federal courts have separately blocked the administration’s companion strategy of withholding funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. U.S. District Judge William Orrick (N.D. California) issued a preliminary injunction on April 24, 2025, blocking the administration from cutting or conditioning federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, protecting over 30 cities and counties. He extended this injunction in August 2025, characterizing the executive orders as an unconstitutional “coercive threat.” Judge William Smith separately ruled it unconstitutional to condition FEMA grants on immigration cooperation. [^044-a7]

Strong Inferences

The anti-commandeering doctrine, established by conservative justices, poses a fundamental legal barrier to the administration’s position. In Printz v. United States (1997), Justice Antonin Scalia — writing for a conservative majority — held that the Constitution’s framers intended states to possess a “residuary and inviolable sovereignty” that barred the federal government from “impress[ing] into its service … the police officers of the 50 States.” This principle was reinforced in New York v. United States (1992) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018). The anti-commandeering doctrine means that states cannot be required to enforce federal regulatory programs — including immigration enforcement. Declining to honor ICE detainers, restricting information sharing beyond what 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 narrowly requires, and refusing to allow ICE access to local jails are exercises of state sovereignty, not “obstruction.” No court has upheld the theory that sanctuary policies constitute obstruction or harboring under federal law. [^044-a8]

The administration’s litigation record through March 2026 is zero wins and two dismissals. Of the nine documented lawsuits, two have been resolved — both dismissed. The remaining seven are pending, with no injunctions or other favorable rulings obtained by the government. The New Jersey cities’ defense in the May 2025 case has cited the Third Circuit’s 2021 decision upholding New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive — a directly controlling precedent in that jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the jurisdictions being sued have obtained protective injunctions against the companion funding-cut strategy. The administration has not won a single ruling in any sanctuary city lawsuit. [^044-a9]

The characterization of sanctuary policies as “obstructing” federal law is legally contested and has been rejected by courts. Courts have consistently distinguished between active obstruction (which could be unlawful) and passive non-cooperation (which is constitutionally protected). In United States v. California, the Ninth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 “merely provided the option, not the requirement, to assist ICE” and warned that “treating noncooperation as obstruction could enable commandeering state resources.” In the Illinois case, the court held that the challenged sanctuary policies were constitutionally protected exercises of Tenth Amendment authority. The word “obstructing” in the claim imports illegality that courts have not found. [^044-a10]

Only two jurisdictions have changed their sanctuary policies in response to the administration’s pressure campaign — and only one through litigation threats. Louisville, Kentucky, modified its policies after receiving a warning letter in June 2025, agreeing to notify federal immigration authorities before releasing inmates with immigration detainers. Nevada was removed from the sanctuary list after the governor signed a cooperation agreement. Every other targeted jurisdiction — including every state and major city sued — has maintained or strengthened its sanctuary policies. Local Democratic leaders have “doubled down” on their policies, and over 140 cities and counties have filed amicus briefs supporting defendants in the sanctuary lawsuits. [^044-a11]

Informed Speculation

The litigation strategy appears designed primarily to generate political pressure and favorable media coverage rather than to achieve legal victories. Several indicators support this inference:

First, the legal theories the administration is advancing have been rejected by courts in both the first and second Trump terms. During the first term (2017-2021), the Ninth Circuit blocked sanctuary city funding conditions, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the Biden DOJ dropped the appeal. The same legal arguments about Supremacy Clause preemption and 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 are being recycled despite this track record.

Second, the timing of lawsuit filings correlates with political moments rather than legal developments. The New York City lawsuit was filed the day after the Illinois dismissal — suggesting the purpose was to generate a new headline to offset the loss. The Boston lawsuit was filed during a week of intensified immigration rhetoric.

Third, the Boston Globe reported that legal experts characterized the Boston lawsuit as being “about making noise” rather than achieving legal outcomes. The lawsuits serve the political purpose of framing sanctuary cities as lawless obstructors of federal authority, regardless of what courts actually rule.

Fourth, the cost to federal taxpayers of this litigation campaign is not trivial. The DOJ Civil Division is deploying significant resources across seven judicial districts, filing complaints, responding to motions, and managing discovery — all for a legal position that has produced zero favorable rulings. Meanwhile, targeted jurisdictions are diverting their own resources to defense, creating a compounding taxpayer burden at both federal and local levels.

The administration’s true enforcement gains against sanctuary cities have come not through litigation but through operational workarounds — ICE conducting operations inside sanctuary cities despite local non-cooperation (Item #45) and withholding specific grant categories that courts have not yet enjoined.

Structural Analysis

This is an “action” claim, not an “outcome” claim — and the distinction matters. The claim says the administration “filed” lawsuits. Filing a lawsuit requires nothing more than drafting a complaint and paying a filing fee. It asserts nothing about the merits of the claims, the strength of the legal theories, or whether the lawsuits achieved anything. The phrasing invites the reader to infer that the lawsuits were warranted and successful — but the evidence shows neither. Two lawsuits dismissed, zero won, and a legal position that contradicts established Supreme Court precedent authored by a conservative justice.

“Obstructing” is doing the work that the law cannot. The central word in this claim is “obstructing.” In ordinary English, obstruction implies wrongful interference. But courts have repeatedly held that sanctuary policies are not obstruction — they are exercises of constitutionally protected state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. States that decline to honor ICE detainers are not blocking federal agents from doing their jobs; they are simply refusing to do the federal government’s job for it. The federal government remains free to enforce its own immigration laws with its own personnel. The word “obstructing” imports illegality that the evidence does not support.

Stated vs. revealed preferences. The stated preference is legal enforcement — compelling compliance through the courts. The revealed preference is political pressure — using the announcement of lawsuits and the threat of funding cuts to force policy changes or, failing that, to frame political opponents as soft on crime and immigration. The evidence for the political-pressure interpretation: zero legal victories, continued filing despite losses, and lawsuit timing that correlates with news cycles rather than legal developments.

Cui bono. The primary beneficiaries of the litigation campaign are political: the administration gets to announce aggressive action against “sanctuary” cities, and opponents are placed in the position of appearing to defend criminals against federal law enforcement. The populations that bear the cost include federal taxpayers funding a losing litigation strategy, local taxpayers in targeted jurisdictions funding their defense, and immigrant communities whose trust in local institutions is eroded by the politicization of law enforcement.

The padding lens. This claim is one of three sanctuary-related entries in the “365 wins” list (Items #42, #44, #45). Filing lawsuits (this claim) is a distinct action from cutting funding (#42) or conducting enforcement operations (#45), but all three describe different tactics within a single strategy: pressuring sanctuary cities. Listing each tactic as a separate “win” inflates the count. Moreover, calling the filing of lawsuits that you are losing a “win” stretches the definition considerably.

Context the Framing Omits

The anti-commandeering doctrine is settled constitutional law authored by conservative justices. Printz v. United States was a 5-4 decision with Justice Scalia writing for the conservative majority. The principle that the federal government cannot conscript state officials to administer federal programs is not a liberal invention — it is a core element of conservative federalism. The Trump administration’s sanctuary city lawsuits ask courts to create an immigration exception to this principle, and courts have so far declined.

The first-term litigation campaign on sanctuary cities failed. During Trump’s first term, Executive Order 13768 (January 25, 2017) sought to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. Multiple federal courts blocked this effort. The Ninth Circuit ruled that sanctuary ordinances are lawful. The Supreme Court declined to intervene, and the Biden DOJ dropped the government’s appeal. The second-term lawsuits recycle substantially similar legal theories.

The NJ cities have directly applicable precedent in their favor. New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive — a state policy restricting local police cooperation with ICE — was upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021. The four New Jersey cities sued by the DOJ in May 2025 have cited this controlling precedent in their defense motions, arguing the administration is attempting to relitigate already-resolved issues.

Over 50 jurisdictions have joined defensive coalitions against the administration. Rather than capitulating, sanctuary jurisdictions have organized collective legal resistance. The San Francisco v. Trump coalition grew from 16 to over 50 plaintiffs. Over 140 cities, counties, and elected officials filed amicus briefs supporting defendants in the Minnesota and Rochester cases. The litigation campaign appears to be strengthening, not weakening, sanctuary city solidarity.

The DHS published and then withdrew a list of 500+ sanctuary jurisdictions. In May 2025, DHS published a far broader list of jurisdictions it considered “sanctuary” — over 500 — before removing it from its website following criticism. The final DOJ list of 35 jurisdictions (August 2025) was dramatically narrower, suggesting even the administration recognized the original designation was overbroad.

Verdict

Factual core: True as to the action. The administration filed multiple lawsuits — at least nine separate cases in seven federal districts — against states and cities over sanctuary policies. “Multiple” is an understatement; the campaign has been prolific.

Why “true” and not “misleading”: This is an action claim — “filed multiple lawsuits” — and the action demonstrably occurred. The claim does not assert that the lawsuits were won, that the legal theories were correct, or that sanctuary policies are in fact illegal. Unlike many claims in this list, it does not assert a false outcome or manipulate statistics. It describes something the administration did, and the administration did it.

Where the framing misleads without technically lying:

1. “Obstructing” presupposes illegality that courts have rejected. The word “obstructing” characterizes sanctuary policies as unlawful interference with federal law. Courts have consistently held the opposite: declining to assist with federal immigration enforcement is a constitutionally protected exercise of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The claim’s framing invites the reader to assume the jurisdictions are doing something wrong, when the legal system has found they are exercising established rights.

2. Filing lawsuits is not winning lawsuits. The claim counts the litigation itself as a “win.” But through March 2026, the administration has won zero cases and lost two (Illinois dismissed, Rochester dismissed). Multiple courts have also blocked the companion strategy of withholding funds. Listing the filing of a losing litigation campaign as a presidential accomplishment is unusual, to say the least.

3. The claim omits the anti-commandeering doctrine. The constitutional principle — authored by conservative Justice Scalia — that states cannot be compelled to enforce federal regulatory programs is the elephant in the room. The claim frames the dispute as lawbreaking states vs. law-enforcing federal government, when the legal reality is that states are exercising constitutional rights that the federal government is attempting to override.

What a reader should understand: The administration did file multiple lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions — at least nine cases in seven federal districts, targeting states (Illinois, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey), major cities (Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Denver), and smaller jurisdictions (Rochester, Newark, Hoboken, Paterson, Jersey City). That is factually true, and the litigation campaign has been extensive. But calling the filing of these lawsuits a “win” omits the most important context: the administration has won zero of these cases. Two have been dismissed, including the first and most prominent (Illinois, on Tenth Amendment grounds). Courts have separately blocked the companion strategy of withholding federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. The legal theories the DOJ is advancing contradict the anti-commandeering doctrine established by conservative justices in Printz v. United States. The word “obstructing” mischaracterizes what sanctuary policies do — they decline to participate in federal enforcement, which is constitutionally protected, rather than blocking federal agents from doing their own work. Of the 35 jurisdictions formally designated as “sanctuary” by the DOJ, only Louisville, Kentucky, changed its policies in response. The filing of lawsuits is a real action, but a losing litigation campaign is a strange thing to call a win.

Cross-References

• Item #42: “Cut billions of dollars in federal grants from sanctuary cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement” — the funding-cut track of the same anti-sanctuary strategy. Courts have blocked much of this effort. Together with Item #44, these represent two tactics within a single strategy listed as separate “wins.”
• Item #45: “Conducted sustained interior enforcement operations in so-called ‘sanctuary’ cities, removing thousands of criminal illegal aliens from our streets” — the operational track. This represents the administration’s workaround when legal and financial pressure on sanctuary jurisdictions fails: conducting federal operations directly.

Sources

U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department Publishes List of Sanctuary Jurisdictions.” Press Release 25-809. August 5, 2025. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-publishes-list-sanctuary-jurisdictions

U.S. Department of Justice. “The Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Sanctuary City Policies In Los Angeles, California.” June 30, 2025. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-sanctuary-city-policies-los-angeles-california

U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department Sues New York City Over Sanctuary Policies.” July 24, 2025. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-new-york-city-over-sanctuary-policies

U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against New Jersey for Interfering with Federal Immigration Laws.” February 24, 2026. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-new-jersey-interfering-federal-immigration-laws

CBS News. “Trump’s legal crackdown on ‘sanctuary’ cities and states yields few results so far.” September 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sanctuary-cities-crackdown-results/

TIME. “Trump’s Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow.” July 2025. https://time.com/7305683/trumps-battle-with-sanctuary-cities-dealt-major-blow-but-they-find-new-frontier/

NPR. “Judge blocks Trump from cutting funding over ‘sanctuary’ policies.” August 23, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/23/g-s1-84863/judge-blocks-trump-from-cutting-funding-sanctuary-cities

Lawfare. “Can the U.S. Government Compel States to Enforce Immigration Law?” 2025. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-the-u.s.-government-compel-states-to-enforce-immigration-law

Congressional Research Service. “‘Sanctuary’ Jurisdictions: Legal Overview.” LSB11321. Updated 2025. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11321

Newsweek. “Donald Trump Dealt Legal Blow Over Sanctuary Cities.” July 2025. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-sanctuary-city-lawsuit-dismissed-judge-2104361

The Conversation. “Federal threats against local officials who don’t cooperate with immigration orders could be unconstitutional.” 2025. https://theconversation.com/federal-threats-against-local-officials-who-dont-cooperate-with-immigration-orders-could-be-unconstitutional-justice-antonin-scalia-ruled-against-similar-plans-248276

National Association of Counties. “DOJ releases updated list of designated sanctuary jurisdictions.” 2025. https://www.naco.org/news/doj-releases-updated-list-designated-sanctuary-jurisdictions

Public Rights Project. “San Francisco v. Trump: Sanctuary cities fact sheet.” 2025. https://www.publicrightsproject.org/san-francisco-v-trump-sanctuary-cities-fact-sheet/

Stateline. “Trump administration vows to ‘come after’ sanctuary states and cities, despite court setbacks.” August 19, 2025. https://stateline.org/2025/08/19/trump-administration-vows-to-come-after-sanctuary-states-and-cities-despite-court-setbacks/

New Jersey Monitor. “NJ cities ask judge to reject Trump admin’s push targeting sanctuary city orders.” October 16, 2025. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2025/10/16/nj-sanctuary-cities-trump-lawsuit/