A federal judge on Monday dismissed former President Donald Trump's lawsuit against Los Angeles over its sanctuary city policies, delivering a significant legal victory to the city and its immigrant community.
Ruling upholds LA's immigration protections
U.S. District Judge John F. Walter ruled that Los Angeles' ordinances limiting local law enforcement's cooperation with federal immigration authorities do not violate federal law. The decision blocks Trump's attempt to force the city to assist in immigration enforcement.
"The city's policies are lawful and consistent with federal statutes," Walter wrote in his 45-page opinion. "There is no preemption."
The lawsuit, filed in 2024, argued that Los Angeles violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause by prohibiting city employees from sharing information about a person's immigration status with federal authorities. The judge rejected that claim, noting that federal law does not compel state and local governments to enforce immigration laws.
Impact on immigrant communities
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass hailed the ruling as a win for public safety. "Today's decision affirms that Los Angeles will remain a city where all residents can access city services without fear," Bass said in a statement. "Our sanctuary policies make our communities safer by building trust between law enforcement and the people they serve."
The city's sanctuary ordinance, known as Special Order 40, has been in place since 1979. It prohibits LAPD officers from initiating contact with individuals solely to determine their immigration status. A 2017 measure, the "California Values Act," further restricts state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
According to city data, Los Angeles County is home to an estimated 1.8 million immigrants, including nearly 500,000 undocumented residents. Advocates say sanctuary policies encourage victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of deportation.
Legal and political implications
Trump's legal team argued that the city's policies obstruct federal immigration enforcement and violate the Immigration and Nationality Act. They pointed to a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Trump administration's ability to enforce immigration laws but did not directly address sanctuary city policies.
Judge Walter distinguished the case, noting that the city's policies do not actively obstruct federal agents. "The ordinances do not prohibit federal immigration enforcement; they merely limit city resources from being used for that purpose," he wrote.
The ruling is likely to be appealed. Trump's campaign spokesperson released a statement calling the decision "an affront to the rule of law" and vowed to continue fighting "to protect our borders."
Broader context of sanctuary city battles
The lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of legal clashes between the Trump administration and sanctuary jurisdictions. Similar lawsuits have been filed against California, New York, and Chicago. In 2020, a federal appeals court upheld California's sanctuary law, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Legal experts say the Los Angeles ruling reinforces the principle that states and cities can decide how to allocate their own resources. "The federal government cannot commandeer local law enforcement to carry out its immigration agenda," said law professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Marymount University. "This decision follows a clear line of precedent."
The city's policies have broad public support in Los Angeles. A 2023 poll by the USC Dornsife Center found that 68% of Los Angeles County residents support sanctuary city policies. However, critics argue they undermine federal law and can lead to the release of undocumented individuals who have committed crimes.
