The Trump administration sued New Jersey and Gov. Mikie Sherrill on Tuesday over a newly issued executive order that limits federal immigration enforcement on state-owned property.
The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit challenging Executive Order No. 12, signed by Sherrill earlier this month, which prohibits Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other federal immigration officials from conducting secure arrests of criminal illegal aliens inside nonpublic areas of state property, including state correctional facilities.
In the complaint, the administration argued the order unlawfully obstructs federal authority.
"This law poses an intolerable obstacle to federal immigration enforcement and directly regulates and discriminates against the federal government, in contravention of the Supremacy Clause," the lawsuit charges.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the policy undermines public safety and federal law enforcement operations.
"Federal agents are risking their lives to keep New Jersey citizens safe, and yet New Jersey's leaders are enacting policies designed to obstruct and endanger law enforcement," Bondi said. "States may not deliberately interfere with our efforts to remove illegal aliens and arrest criminals.
"New Jersey's sanctuary policies will not stand."
According to the complaint, New Jersey's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities has resulted in the release of individuals "convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking" who would otherwise be subject to removal proceedings.
Sherrill's executive order, signed shortly after she took office earlier this month, bars federal immigration agents from accessing certain nonpublic areas of state facilities for enforcement actions without state authorization.
Supporters of the measure say it is intended to protect civil rights and clarify the role of state agencies in federal immigration matters, while critics have labeled it a "sanctuary" policy that shields criminal offenders.
On her first day in office, Bondi directed the Justice Department's Civil Division to identify state and local laws that "facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations."
The DOJ published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions on Aug. 5, 2025, prior to New Jersey's latest order, and has since filed similar lawsuits targeting policies in New York City, Minnesota, and Los Angeles.
The New Jersey lawsuit marks the latest escalation in the administration's broader legal campaign against state and local immigration policies it argues conflict with federal law.
Similar legal and political clashes have unfolded in other Democrat-led states and cities in recent years, as officials test how far they can go in limiting cooperation with ICE amid complaints the agency has taken an increasingly aggressive posture under Trump.
The Justice Department in August 2025 published a formal list of what it called “sanctuary jurisdictions,” naming states including California, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Minnesota, along with major cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, and said their policies “materially impede” federal immigration enforcement, according to a DOJ announcement at the time.
California’s 2017 California Values Act, also known as SB 54, restricts when state and local law enforcement may cooperate with federal immigration authorities and was largely upheld by federal courts after an earlier challenge by the first Trump administration, according to court rulings and prior DOJ litigation.
Illinois enacted its TRUST Act and later the Way Forward Act, limiting when local officials may honor ICE detainers or share certain information absent a judicial warrant, as reported by the Chicago Tribune and other Illinois outlets.
In Chicago, city leaders have repeatedly defended the city’s Welcoming City ordinance, which limits police cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, even as the Trump administration has threatened funding consequences and legal action, according to statements from city officials and prior Justice Department filings.
Minnesota officials have likewise faced federal scrutiny over policies governing information-sharing and access to facilities, with the DOJ arguing in court papers that such limits interfere with federal authority.