It happened fast. One minute, the Department of Justice is swinging a legal sledgehammer at Chicago’s "Welcoming City" ordinance, and the next, a 64-page ruling basically tells the federal government to stay in its lane. Honestly, if you've been following the back-and-forth between the Trump administration and Illinois, this was the legal showdown everyone knew was coming. But the way it ended? That’s where things get interesting.
A federal judge just tossed out the administration’s attempt to scrap the sanctuary laws that have defined Illinois and Chicago for years. We aren't just talking about a minor disagreement over paperwork. This was a full-scale assault on the Illinois TRUST Act and the Way Forward Act, laws that essentially tell local cops: "Don't do the feds' job for them when it comes to immigration."
The Ruling That Stunned the DOJ
U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins didn't mince words. On July 25, 2025, she granted the motions to dismiss filed by Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County. The core of the feds' argument was that these "sanctuary" rules were a middle finger to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. They claimed Chicago was "thwarting" federal law.
Judge Jenkins wasn't buying it.
She leaned heavily on something called the anti-commandeering doctrine. It sounds like legal jargon, but it’s actually a pretty simple concept from the 10th Amendment. Basically, the federal government can’t treat state and local police like their own personal interns. You can’t force a Chicago beat cop to spend their shift doing the work of an ICE agent if the state says no.
The judge noted that federal immigration detainers are requests, not mandatory orders. If they’re just requests, then Illinois isn’t "breaking" anything by saying, "No thanks, we're busy."
💡 You might also like: Why a Man Hits Girl for Bullying Incidents Go Viral and What They Reveal About Our Breaking Point
Why the Judge Dismissed Trump's Lawsuit Against Illinois Chicago Sanctuary Policies
People keep asking: how can a city just ignore federal immigration officials?
Well, it’s not exactly "ignoring" them. It’s about who pays the bills and who calls the shots. The lawsuit, officially known as United States v. State of Illinois, targeted three main things:
- The TRUST Act (2017): Prevents local law enforcement from detaining anyone solely based on an ICE detainer unless there’s a criminal warrant.
- The Way Forward Act (2021): Cut off the last remaining ties, like ending contracts with local jails to house immigration detainees.
- Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance: The city’s local version that limits information sharing with federal authorities.
The Trump administration argued these laws "obstruct" the federal government. But Jenkins’ ruling pointed out a major flaw in that logic. She argued that since the federal government is the only one with the power to enforce civil immigration law, the state isn't actually "competing" or "discriminating" against them. There is no state-level equivalent of ICE to compare them to.
"Refusing to help is not the same as impeding," the ruling essentially argued.
The 10th Amendment vs. The Supremacy Clause
This is where the legal nerds get really excited. The DOJ tried to use the Supremacy Clause—the idea that federal law beats state law every time. But the 10th Amendment is like the "Stop" sign for that.
📖 Related: Why are US flags at half staff today and who actually makes that call?
Judge Jenkins cited some heavy-hitter Supreme Court cases like Printz v. United States and Arizona v. United States. She made it clear that while the federal government does have the power to handle immigration, they don't have the power to conscript state officials to do the heavy lifting.
Kinda makes sense, right? If the feds want to enforce federal law, they gotta use federal employees. They can't just hijack the Chicago Police Department’s budget and manpower to do it for them.
What This Means for You (and the Rest of the Country)
This isn't just an Illinois thing.
This dismissal sent shockwaves to other "sanctuary" hubs like Los Angeles, New York, and Boston. If this ruling holds up on appeal—and yeah, the feds already filed a notice of appeal in October—it sets a massive precedent. It means the "sanctuary" label isn't just a political buzzword; it's a constitutionally protected choice of governance.
Governor JB Pritzker was all over social media after the win. He basically said, "We follow the law, unlike the other guys." Meanwhile, the White House has been fuming. Just recently, in January 2026, President Trump even threatened to yank federal funding—specifically Community Development Block Grants—from Chicago to force them into compliance.
👉 See also: Elecciones en Honduras 2025: ¿Quién va ganando realmente según los últimos datos?
But there's a catch. Another judge, William Orrick, already issued an injunction against that kind of funding-pulling. So, for now, the feds are stuck.
Misconceptions Everyone Has About Sanctuary Cities
Let’s clear some things up because the rhetoric gets wild:
- "They protect violent criminals": The TRUST Act doesn't stop police from cooperating if there's a judicial criminal warrant. If someone is a suspect in a robbery, the feds can still get them.
- "It’s illegal to be a sanctuary city": Nope. As this ruling shows, it's actually a state's right under the 10th Amendment to decide how to use its own resources.
- "ICE can't enter Chicago": ICE can still do their thing. They just have to do it without the help of the CPD.
What Happens Next?
The case is currently headed to the appellate courts. The administration hasn't given up, and they've even launched "Operation Midway Blitz," sending more federal agents into the city to bypass the lack of local help. In response, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul just filed a massive 100-page lawsuit against the Trump administration, calling these tactics an "unlawful occupation."
It's a mess. Honestly, it’s a total legal tug-of-war.
Actionable Next Steps
If you’re trying to navigate how these laws affect your community or business, here’s what you should actually do:
- Review Local Compliance: If you run a business or work in local government, ensure your internal policies align with the Way Forward Act.
- Monitor the 7th Circuit: Keep an eye on the appellate court filings for United States v. Illinois. This is where the final word will likely come from.
- Know the Difference in Warrants: Understand that "administrative warrants" (from ICE) are NOT the same as "judicial warrants" (from a judge). In Illinois, that distinction is the difference between cooperating and not.
- Consult Legal Counsel: If you’re an employer, make sure your HR department knows what they can and cannot share with federal authorities under these specific Illinois protections.
The legal battle isn't over, but for now, the "sanctuary" walls in Illinois are standing taller than ever.