LA Sanctuary Policy Stands
Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Administration's Lawsuit Challenging Los Angeles Sanctuary City Ordinance
Key Points
U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin granted the DOJ permission to file an amended complaint after dismissing the initial suit, allowing the government to revise its claims.
The ordinance at issue is titled the 'Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement' and it applies to city departments including the Los Angeles Police Department.
The judge rejected the administration's claim that the city unconstitutionally tried to regulate the federal government, ruling instead that the ordinance 'controls the actions of the City's own agents and agencies.'
The DOJ framing included a Supremacy Clause argument, alleging the ordinance unlawfully discriminates against federal immigration authorities.
This case fits within a broader DOJ campaign challenging sanctuary-style policies; other lawsuits against Democratic-led jurisdictions such as Boston and Chicago have also been dismissed.
A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit against Los Angeles over its sanctuary city ordinance on June 20, 2026, dealing the White House an early courtroom loss in its campaign against cities that limit cooperation with immigration agents. U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin ruled the Justice Department failed to show the city's policy was preempted by federal law, according to Courthouse News Service.
The ruling dismisses the administration's challenge to Ordinance No. 188441, signed by Mayor Karen Bass in December 2024, which bars Los Angeles from using city resources — including the LAPD — to assist federal immigration enforcement. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said the decision reinforces a "well-established principle" of local control over city personnel and resources, according to Reuters.
Judge Finds Ordinance Controls City, Not Federal Government
The Trump DOJ argued the ordinance violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause by discriminating against federal immigration authorities. Judge Olguin rejected that framing entirely. He ruled the law "controls the actions of the City's own agents and agencies" — not the federal government, according to Courthouse News Service. That distinction is legally decisive: the federal government cannot force local officials to enforce federal law.
The administration also raised an intergovernmental immunity argument, claiming Los Angeles unconstitutionally tried to regulate federal activity. The judge found the DOJ failed to plausibly support that claim. Individual defendants — including Mayor Bass and other city leaders — were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be sued again on these grounds. The City of Los Angeles remains as the sole defendant, according to Econotimes.
What LA's Sanctuary Ordinance Actually Prohibits
The 2024 ordinance does four main things. It bars city employees from collecting immigration status information. It prohibits holding people for federal agents without a criminal warrant. It blocks federal access to city property and non-public databases. And it bans city participation in federal immigration operations, according to World Infonasional.
The city argues these rules make communities safer. When crime victims and witnesses fear deportation, they avoid police contact. Feldstein Soto said the ordinance does not obstruct lawful federal enforcement — it simply keeps city resources focused on local public safety. Los Angeles County is home to roughly 3.56 million immigrants, about 35% of the county's total population.
LA Ruling Fits a Pattern of DOJ Losses in Sanctuary Cases
This is not the first time a federal judge has thrown out a DOJ sanctuary lawsuit. A federal judge in Illinois dismissed a similar challenge against Chicago and the state on July 25, 2025. Then on May 28–29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin dismissed the federal challenge to Boston's "Trust Act" sanctuary policy. Three cities, three dismissals, according to Head Topics.
Legal analysts say the administration faces an uphill fight. Courts have consistently relied on the 10th Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine — the legal rule that stops the federal government from forcing local governments to carry out federal programs. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Los Angeles ruling.
DOJ Can Revise Its Case, but the Path Forward Is Narrow
Judge Olguin did not fully close the door. He gave the Justice Department permission to file an amended complaint against the City of Los Angeles. That means the legal fight is not over — just reset. The DOJ will need to craft a stronger legal theory to survive a second dismissal attempt, according to Econotimes.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi had argued that sanctuary policies were the "driving cause of the violence and chaos" seen during 2025 protests. U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli claimed the city was "picking and choosing" which laws to enforce. But with three straight courtroom losses, legal experts say the administration may shift tactics — moving toward funding-based penalties rather than direct litigation.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativePublishers
27
Articles
153
Reach
180
