Key facts
- A federal judge has dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, and Paterson.
- The lawsuit challenged local policies that limit cooperation between state/local law enforcement and federal immigration agents.
- U.S. District Judge William H. Padin Jr. ruled that New Jersey's Immigrant Trust Directive makes the federal government's claims moot.
- The Immigrant Trust Directive, enacted in 2018 and codified this year, restricts when law enforcement can assist federal immigration agents.
- Padin stated the federal case treated local policies as if they operated in isolation, ignoring the overarching state directive.
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice against four New Jersey cities, finding that their local policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration agents were rendered moot by a broader state directive. U.S. District Judge William H. Padin Jr. ruled that the federal government's case had a fundamental flaw by treating the challenged local policies as if they operated in isolation.
The Immigrant Trust Directive, initially put in place under former Governor Phil Murphy's administration in 2018 and later codified into state law by Governor Mikie Sherrill, significantly restricts when state and local law enforcement can collaborate with federal immigration agents on civil immigration enforcement.
Padin stated that the statewide directive, which also limits voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement beyond legal requirements, effectively neutralized the harm the DOJ alleged stemmed from the cities' individual policies. While the DOJ argued that some aspects of the cities' policies went beyond the state directive and could be challenged separately, Padin determined these differences were too minor or hypothetical to justify continuing the lawsuit.
Attorneys for the cities, such as Aymen Aboushi for Paterson, celebrated the ruling, emphasizing that their policies balance protecting vulnerable populations with legal obligations. The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.