Trump Administration Sues New Jersey Over Limits on ICE Arrests at State Properties

The Trump administration sued the state of New Jersey on Monday, challenging a new executive order that limits where federal immigration agents can make arrests on state property.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Trenton by the U.S. Department of Justice, targets a Feb. 11 directive signed by Gov. Mikie Sherrill. The order bars immigration agents from conducting arrests in nonpublic areas of state-owned facilities, including correctional institutions and courthouses, and prohibits the use of state property as staging or processing sites for enforcement operations.

Federal officials argue the order unlawfully interferes with national immigration enforcement and obstructs President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. The complaint contends the directive “poses an intolerable obstacle” to federal operations and improperly regulates the federal government.

The lawsuit also accuses Sherrill of attempting to shield individuals from federal authorities. In the filing, the administration claims the state is effectively impeding federal officers from carrying out their duties.

Sherrill, a Democrat who took office Jan. 20, dismissed the allegations. Asked about the lawsuit Tuesday, she said the federal government should prioritize training its immigration agents rather than “attacking states like New Jersey working to keep people safe.”

New Jersey Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport called the suit a “pointless legal challenge” and said the state would vigorously defend the order while continuing efforts to protect immigrant communities.

The legal action marks the latest escalation in the administration’s broader effort to challenge state and local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The Justice Department has filed similar lawsuits in recent years against Minnesota and Colorado, as well as cities including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Denver over so-called sanctuary policies.

In a separate case filed last May, the administration sued four New Jersey cities — Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken — over comparable restrictions. That litigation remains pending.

Legal Analysis

At the heart of the dispute is the constitutional balance between federal supremacy and state sovereignty. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law generally preempts conflicting state laws. The Justice Department argues that New Jersey’s directive effectively regulates federal officers and obstructs enforcement of federal immigration statutes.

However, states are not required to assist in enforcing federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state officials to carry out federal regulatory programs. New Jersey is likely to argue that its order does not prevent federal agents from enforcing immigration laws outright, but instead governs how state-owned property may be used — an area traditionally within state control.

Legal experts say courts will likely examine whether the executive order merely declines cooperation, which is generally permissible, or actively impedes federal enforcement efforts, which could violate constitutional principles. The outcome could further define the limits of state authority in immigration-related disputes — an area that remains politically and legally contentious nationwide.