Honestly, the legal tug-of-law between Chicago and Washington D.C. just hit a massive brick wall. If you’ve been following the headlines, you know the Trump administration has been on a warpath against so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions. But recently, a federal judge dismisses Trump's lawsuit challenging Illinois' sanctuary policies, and the reasoning behind it is a fascinating lesson in Constitutional "do's and don'ts."
Basically, the Department of Justice (DOJ) tried to argue that Illinois and Chicago were breaking the law by refusing to help federal agents hunt down and deport undocumented immigrants. They claimed the state's policies violated the Supremacy Clause—the idea that federal law always wins. But Judge Lindsay Jenkins wasn't buying it. In a 64-page ruling that dropped in late July 2025, she essentially told the federal government: "You can't make the states do your job for you."
It’s a huge blow to the administration’s mass deportation strategy. While the White House is currently threatening to pull billions in funding in retaliation, the legal precedent set here makes it much harder for them to force local police into becoming de facto ICE agents.
What Really Happened with the Illinois Sanctuary Lawsuit?
The lawsuit specifically took aim at three big pieces of legislation: the Illinois TRUST Act, the Way Forward Act, and Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance. These aren't just feel-good labels. They are hard legal barriers that prevent local cops from checking someone’s immigration status or holding them in jail just because ICE sent a "detainer" request.
The Trump DOJ argued these laws were "interfering" with federal operations. They even called it a "coordinated effort to obstruct." But the court saw it differently. Judge Jenkins, a Biden appointee, leaned heavily on the Tenth Amendment.
🔗 Read more: When Does Joe Biden's Term End: What Actually Happened
"It 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," Jenkins wrote.
This is what legal nerds call the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine. It basically says the feds can't treat state employees like their own personal workforce. Think of it like this: the federal government can set the rules for the whole country, but they can't force your local sheriff to spend his budget and his officers' time doing their paperwork.
The Core of the Conflict: Supremacy vs. Sovereignty
You’ve probably heard the term "sanctuary city" tossed around like a political football. For the Trump administration, it’s a matter of national security and "law and order." For Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, it’s about public safety.
They argue that if immigrants are afraid that talking to a local cop will lead to deportation, they won't report crimes. They won't be witnesses. They won't call 911 when there’s an emergency.
💡 You might also like: Fire in Idyllwild California: What Most People Get Wrong
Why the Feds Think They Should Win
The DOJ’s argument was built on the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2). They believe that because immigration is strictly a federal power, any state law that makes immigration enforcement harder is unconstitutional. They pointed to Arizona v. United States (2012), where the Supreme Court struck down parts of Arizona’s "show me your papers" law.
Why the Judge Sided with Illinois
Judge Jenkins noted a key difference. In the Arizona case, the state was trying to add its own immigration penalties. In the Illinois case, the state is simply refusing to help. There is a massive legal distinction between a state actively blocking a federal agent and a state just saying, "We aren't participating."
Because the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) makes cooperation permissive—meaning local help is optional—there was no "hook" for the feds to claim Illinois was breaking the law.
The Fallout: Retaliation and Federal Funding
The ruling didn't end the fight; it just moved it to a new, messier phase. By January 2026, President Trump began threatening to bypass the courts entirely. During a speech at the Detroit Economic Forum, he vowed to yank funding from Chicago and 33 other "sanctuary" jurisdictions starting February 1.
📖 Related: Who Is More Likely to Win the Election 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
We’re talking about $1.9 billion for the CTA Red Line extension and billions more in Community Development Block Grants.
This is where it gets spicy. Another judge, William Orrick, has already issued injunctions to stop the administration from withholding this money. The courts are basically saying the President can't use the federal checkbook as a club to beat states into submission over policies that have already been ruled legal.
Practical Insights for the Road Ahead
If you're trying to make sense of where this goes next, here are a few things to keep in mind:
- Appeals are coming. The DOJ has already appealed Jenkins' ruling to the Seventh Circuit. This could eventually end up at the Supreme Court, which has a very different ideological makeup.
- The "Anti-Commandeering" shield is strong. Conservative justices like Clarence Thomas have historically been huge fans of the Tenth Amendment. It will be interesting to see if they stay consistent on state's rights when it comes to immigration.
- Local protections remain in place. For now, the TRUST Act is the law of the land in Illinois. Local police are still prohibited from cooperating with ICE on civil immigration matters.
- Watch the funding battles. This is where the real-world impact will be felt first. If the administration successfully freezes grants, cities like Chicago will face massive budget holes that could affect everything from schools to trash pickup.
To stay ahead of these developments, keep a close watch on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals docket and any new filings from Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who has been aggressively filing counter-suits to protect state sovereignty.