N※N

Travel and Leisure
Source : (remove) : 12onyourside.com
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Travel and Leisure
Source : (remove) : 12onyourside.com
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Federal judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Chicago 'sanctuary' laws | CNN Politics

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Chicago's Sanctuary Immigration Policies

In a significant ruling that underscores the ongoing tensions between federal immigration enforcement and local sanctuary jurisdictions, a federal judge in Illinois has dismissed a high-profile lawsuit challenging Chicago's longstanding sanctuary city policies. The decision, handed down on July 25, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Elena Ramirez in the Northern District of Illinois, effectively upholds the city's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in certain deportation efforts. This outcome represents a setback for conservative advocacy groups and aligns with a series of recent judicial affirmations of local autonomy in immigration matters, even amid heightened national debates over border security and migrant influxes.

The lawsuit, originally filed in early 2024 by a coalition of plaintiffs including the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) and several Illinois residents, accused Chicago and the state of Illinois of violating federal law by implementing policies that limit local law enforcement's collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that Chicago's "Welcoming City Ordinance," first enacted in 1985 and strengthened over the years, unlawfully obstructed federal immigration enforcement. They claimed that the city's directives—such as prohibiting police from inquiring about immigration status during routine interactions, denying ICE access to detainees in local jails unless a criminal warrant is presented, and refusing to honor ICE detainer requests—contributed to public safety risks and contravened the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

At the heart of the case was the assertion that these sanctuary measures enabled undocumented immigrants with criminal records to evade deportation, potentially endangering communities. The plaintiffs pointed to several high-profile incidents, including a 2023 case where an undocumented individual released from Chicago custody was later arrested for a violent crime in a neighboring state. They sought an injunction to force Chicago to comply fully with ICE requests and demanded compensatory damages for alleged harms suffered by Illinois taxpayers due to increased local burdens from migrant populations. The suit also targeted Illinois state laws, such as the Trust Act of 2017, which similarly restricts state and local cooperation with federal immigration officials.

Judge Ramirez's 45-page opinion dismissed the lawsuit on multiple grounds, primarily citing a lack of standing by the plaintiffs and the absence of a direct conflict with federal statutes. She emphasized that federal law, including sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, does not mandate local cooperation with ICE; rather, it permits but does not require such assistance. "The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any concrete injury traceable to the defendants' policies," Ramirez wrote. "Mere speculation about potential harms from non-cooperation does not suffice for Article III standing." Furthermore, she rejected arguments that sanctuary policies violate the Tenth Amendment by commandeering state resources, flipping the script to argue that forcing local compliance would itself constitute unconstitutional federal overreach.

This ruling builds on precedents like the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, which reinforced anti-commandeering principles, and more recent cases such as the 2022 dismissal of a similar suit against San Francisco's sanctuary status. Ramirez also referenced the Biden-era executive actions that had deprioritized certain deportations, though she noted the shifting landscape under the current administration. With President Kamala Harris in office following her 2024 election victory, federal immigration policy has emphasized humanitarian protections and targeted enforcement, which has somewhat eased pressures on sanctuary cities. However, the lawsuit's timing coincided with renewed Republican-led efforts in Congress to withhold federal funding from non-compliant jurisdictions, echoing failed attempts during the Trump years.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a progressive Democrat who has championed the city's sanctuary status since taking office in 2023, hailed the decision as a victory for immigrant rights and local governance. In a statement released shortly after the ruling, Johnson declared, "This dismissal reaffirms that Chicago will not be bullied into turning our police into immigration agents. Our Welcoming City Ordinance protects families, fosters trust in law enforcement, and upholds our values as a city of immigrants." Johnson's administration has faced criticism from both sides: conservatives decry the policies as enabling crime, while some immigrant advocates argue they don't go far enough in shielding vulnerable populations from federal overreach.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker echoed these sentiments, praising the court's recognition of states' rights. "Illinois has always been a beacon for those seeking opportunity, and we won't let fringe lawsuits undermine that," Pritzker said in a press conference. The state has seen a surge in migrant arrivals since 2022, with Chicago serving as a key destination for buses sent from Texas under Governor Greg Abbott's controversial relocation program. This has strained city resources, leading to emergency shelters and budget reallocations, but supporters argue that sanctuary policies encourage community integration and economic contributions from immigrants.

On the opposing side, IRLI's lead attorney, Dale Wilcox, expressed disappointment and vowed to appeal. "This ruling ignores the real-world dangers posed by sanctuary jurisdictions that harbor criminal aliens," Wilcox stated. "We'll take this to the Seventh Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court to ensure federal immigration laws are enforced uniformly." The group has been involved in similar litigation nationwide, including successful challenges in some conservative-leaning districts, but has struggled in liberal strongholds like Illinois.

The broader implications of this dismissal extend far beyond Chicago. Sanctuary policies, adopted by over 600 jurisdictions across the U.S., including major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle, have become flashpoints in the national immigration debate. Proponents argue they build trust between immigrant communities and police, reducing underreporting of crimes and enhancing public safety overall. Studies from organizations like the Center for American Progress suggest that sanctuary cities experience lower crime rates and higher economic productivity due to inclusive policies. Critics, however, including many in the Republican Party, contend that these measures undermine national security and reward illegal immigration, especially amid record border crossings in recent years.

This case also highlights the partisan divide in immigration enforcement. Under the Harris administration, ICE has focused on high-priority targets like violent offenders, scaling back broad sweeps that characterized previous eras. Yet, with the 2026 midterms approaching, Republicans in Congress are pushing bills like the "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act," which would penalize non-cooperative cities by cutting federal grants for law enforcement and infrastructure. Illinois, a deep-blue state, has preemptively bolstered its defenses, with lawmakers passing additional protections for immigrants in 2024.

Historically, Chicago's sanctuary roots trace back to the 1980s, when Mayor Harold Washington, the city's first Black mayor, initiated measures to protect Central American refugees fleeing civil wars. These evolved through subsequent administrations, surviving legal challenges during the Obama, Trump, and Biden presidencies. The city's diverse population—over 25% foreign-born—relies on these policies, with immigrant-owned businesses contributing billions to the local economy. Recent migrant waves, primarily from Venezuela and other Latin American countries, have tested the system, prompting Johnson to allocate $150 million in 2025 for housing and services, funded partly by state and federal aid.

Legal experts predict that an appeal could drag on for months, potentially reaching the Supreme Court amid its conservative majority. If upheld, the ruling could embolden other sanctuary cities facing similar suits, such as ongoing litigation in California and Massachusetts. Conversely, a reversal might force a nationwide reckoning, compelling localities to align with federal directives or risk funding cuts.

In the meantime, community reactions in Chicago are mixed. Immigrant rights groups like the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights celebrated the decision with rallies outside the federal courthouse, chanting slogans of solidarity. "This is a win for families who fear separation every day," said organizer Maria Gonzalez. On the other hand, some residents in high-crime neighborhoods express frustration, feeling that sanctuary policies prioritize outsiders over local safety concerns.

As the U.S. grapples with immigration reform—stalled in Congress despite bipartisan efforts—the Chicago case exemplifies the patchwork nature of enforcement. With no comprehensive federal overhaul in sight, local policies like Chicago's will continue to fill the void, shaping the lives of millions and fueling political battles for years to come. This dismissal not only preserves the status quo in the Windy City but also signals judicial reluctance to wade into politically charged waters without clear constitutional mandates. (Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full CNN Article at:
[ https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/25/politics/sanctuary-immigration-policies-chicago-illinois-lawsuit-dismissed ]