By Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Justice Department that accused the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago of unlawfully interfering with President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in Chicago was a setback for Trump’s litigation campaign against local “sanctuary” laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

White House and Justice Department spokespersons did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump, a Republican seeking to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, has sparred with Chicago and other Democratic strongholds over their policies.

Democrats, in turn, have criticized the Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics, including plainclothes immigration agents covering their faces to hide their identities and arrests of immigrants with no criminal records.

Supporters of sanctuary laws have said local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement would discourage immigrants who are living in the country illegally from coming forward as victims or witnesses to crimes.

The Chicago City Council passed an ordinance in 2012 that stops city agencies and employees from getting involved in civil immigration enforcement or helping federal authorities with such efforts. The Illinois legislature passed a similar state law, known as the TRUST Act, in 2017.

The Justice Department sued Chicago and Illinois in February, alleging these laws violate the U.S. Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” that states that federal law preempts state and local laws that may conflict with it.

Jenkins, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, rejected that argument in Friday’s ruling, saying the city’s and the state’s policies are protected by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that states retain significant powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.

The Trump administration on Thursday filed a similar lawsuit against New York City over its local sanctuary laws. A similar case against Los Angeles is pending.

(Reporting by Jan Wolfe, Editing by Bhargav Acharya, Diane Craft and Alexia Garamfalvi and David Gregorio)

SPRINGFIELD — President Donald Trump’s administration went to court Thursday to challenge sanctuary policies in the state of Illinois, Cook County and the city of Chicago that limit the powers of state and local police to assist federal law enforcement on immigration-related matters.

Those policies “have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for, and deliberately impeding, federal immigration officers’ ability to carry out their responsibilities in those jurisdictions,” the plaintiffs argue in their lawsuit, filed in federal court in Chicago.

The lawsuit argues that the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause “prohibits Illinois, Chicago, Cook County, and their officials from obstructing the Federal Government’s ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution.”

Since taking office last month, Trump has vowed to go after Democrat-led cities and states that have implemented sanctuary policies, even though the courts have generally determined such policies to be constitutional.

The legal challenge represents the latest salvo in the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration that has Chicago in its crosshairs. The lawsuit could complicate the decision by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a defendant in the lawsuit, to testify before Congress next month in a Republican-led hearing on sanctuary cities.

Johnson said the city received the lawsuit Thursday and will respond, but “Chicago will stay focused on our priorities.”

“Chicago is and will remain a welcoming city,” Johnson said in a statement. “The safety and security of Chicago residents remains the priority for the Johnson administration. Chicago will continue to protect the working people of our city and defend against attacks on our longstanding values.”

Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, also a defendant in the lawsuit and a political nemesis of Trump, was quick to condemn the federal efforts to overturn the sanctuary policies, saying Illinois is in compliance with federal law and that “unlike Donald Trump, Illinois follows the law.”

“Illinois will defend our laws that prioritize police resources for fighting crime while enabling state law enforcement to assist with arresting violent criminals,” Pritzker said in a statement. “Instead of working with us to support law enforcement, the Trump administration is making it more difficult to protect the public, just like they did when Trump pardoned the convicted Jan. 6 violent criminals. We look forward to seeing them in court.”

The lawsuit specifically goes after the state’s 2017 Trust Act, signed into law by Pritzker’s predecessor, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner. The law generally prohibits state and local law enforcement from getting involved in deportation efforts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other federal law enforcement agencies dealing with immigration matters. While the law prevents state and local law enforcement from assisting the federal government with regular immigration enforcement, it allows coordination when there is a federal criminal warrant involved.

When Rauner signed the Trust Act, it marked a victory for immigrant advocates and a defeat for the more conservative members of his party. At the time, Rauner said he asked law enforcement whether he should sign it and they told him the measure was “a reasonable compromise.”

The lawsuit argues against the 2021 Way Forward Act, which allows the Illinois attorney general’s office to conduct investigations into violations of the Trust Act and requires law enforcement agencies to file annual reports with the attorney general about their interactions with federal immigration authorities.

Chicago’s sanctuary city ordinance bans official cooperation between local law enforcement and federal deportation authorities, while ensuring immigrants living without legal permission can use city services. The lawsuit also mentions Cook County’s statute, which bans ICE agents from the jail and other facilities unless they have a criminal warrant unrelated to immigration.

Chicago’s sanctuary designation has existed since Mayor Harold Washington signed an executive order in 1985, but it was adjusted after Trump took office the first time in 2017. The intent now is to ensure immigrants in the country without legal permission can still report crime without fearing deportation, while depriving the feds of a key resource — local police, who were traditionally ICE’s sources on who to detain outside of border areas.

The policy — and Johnson’s expected upcoming defense of it before Congress— was already poised to exacerbate the ongoing risk to Chicago’s federal resources under Trump. During Trump’s first presidency then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel successfully sued the Justice Department after it withheld federal grants to Chicago because of its sanctuary city policy.

Also during Trump’s first term his administration challenged California’s sanctuary law. But the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case in 2020.

Thursday’s lawsuit shows an escalation in Trump’s bid to punish sanctuary cities.

“This national crisis underscores the vital importance of ‘(e)nforcing our Nation’s immigration laws,’ ” the lawsuit says. “This action seeks to put an end to one State’s efforts to impede the Federal Government from doing that.”

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, also a defendant in the suit, said her team still needed to review the suit and would be in contact with the city and state about their legal strategy.

“We’re going to fight back, we will pursue every legal opportunity to defend the programs that we believe in and defend our values,” she said.

The early actions of the Trump administration “represent an intentionally cruel and coordinated effort to dismantle the progress we’ve made and America’s promise for the future,” Preckwinkle said. “Cook County will stand up for our residents and advocate for the resources we need and challenge the policies that seek to divide us, and we are not alone. If this administration thinks that we will abandon our values, they are mistaken.”

The suit also named as defendants members of the County Board and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart. In a statement, Dart’s office noted it “does not pass or enact legislation regarding immigration” and that it has worked with “federal agents who provide arrest warrants authorizing them to take custody of individuals being detained at the Cook County Jail.”

“As recently as last week, we notified ICE of an individual being released that had a federal arrest warrant and he was picked up from our custody,” the statement said, while going on to say that “we will continue to follow all local, state, and federal laws.”

Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell said his office was prepared to defend people in the U.S. without legal permission in federal immigration cases, whether they are county residents or not. His office has already been representing county residents in Chicago immigration court.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois dismissed the lawsuit as “little more than the continuation of the name-calling and threats” from White House “border czar” Tom Homan’s tough talk about the federal government’s immigration enforcement missions in Chicago.

“The Trump administration cannot bully local communities into participating in their misguided immigration policies,” the ACLU of Illinois said in a statement.

While the lawsuit cites the Supremacy Clause as a justification for declaring sanctuary policies illegal, the ACLU of Illinois argued the U.S. Constitution permits state and local governments to determine local priorities without interference from the federal government.

The lawsuit’s arguments would likely have to be tested against a 1990s U.S. Supreme Court case that found the federal government may not compel states to implement federal laws, according to Nadav Shoked, a Northwestern University law professor who specializes in local government law.

In other words, the Trump administration would have to prove that by Chicago, Cook County and Illinois being prohibited by their state laws and local ordinances from assisting with immigration enforcement efforts, they are actively interfering with the federal government, he said.

“It’s unclear that you can really say that by not helping you they impeded you,” said Shoked. “As a matter of law, it’s problematic.”

Republicans in Illinois backed the Trump administration’s efforts to knock down sanctuary policies. Illinois Senate GOP Leader John Curran of Downers Grove accused Pritzker and Johnson of putting law enforcement and the public at risk by “continuing to obstruct federal immigration authorities from apprehending dangerous criminals being harbored in Illinois illegally.”

He also called for the Trust Act to be repealed — something unlikely to happen since Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.

In an interview Thursday morning with Fox News, Homan said ICE has already arrested thousands of people across the U.S. since the new administration took over more than two weeks ago.

“The vast majority are criminals, public safety threats. And that’s what we’re trying to do,” Homan said. “And for any mayor or governor who doesn’t want public safety threats removed from the communities, I find it hard to believe that. But we’re going to do it, with or without them. If they’re not going to help, get out of the way. But don’t cross that line. Do not impede our operations. Do not — knowingly conceal or harbor illegal immigrants.”

Yin and Quig reported from Chicago. Chicago Tribune’s Rick Pearson contributed.

Birthright citizenship On his first day back in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to stop treating as U.S. citizens any children born in the United States after a certain date whose parents are undocumented or who are in the country legally but temporarily. In June, after legal challenges, the Supreme Court ruled that several district court judges had exceeded their authority in blocking the policy across the country. In July, however, a federal judge issued a preliminary order blocking the Trump administration from enforcing the order after certifying a challenge by the A.C.L.U. as a class action. Supreme Court ruling · June 27 CASA v. Trump An immigrant advocacy group sued, saying Mr. Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional. In late June, the Supreme Court ruled that district court judges had exceeded their authority in blocking the policy across the country. The ruling also limited the ability of lower-court judges to block executive branch policies nationwide, but did not address the constitutionality of the executive order. Read more › Docket ›

Preliminary injunction · July 10 Barbara v. Trump The A.C.L.U. filed suit hours after the Supreme Court’s June ruling limiting the ability of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. In July, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the executive order ending birthright citizenship after certifying the lawsuit as a class action. It was effectively the only way the judge could impose such a far-reaching limit after the Supreme Court ruling. Docket ›

New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump Docket ›

Washington v. Trump Docket ›

Doe v. Trump Docket ›

New Jersey v. Trump Docket ›

New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump Docket ›

County of Santa Clara v. Trump Docket ›

OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio Docket ›

Le v. Trump Docket ›

Federal access restrictions The White House has used its power over access to federal property to single out certain organizations for punishment, prompting legal action. In one case, the Trump administration barred The Associated Press from certain events for its use of the term “Gulf of Mexico.” A federal judge said the administration’s move amounted to a violation of the First Amendment. An appeals court later ruled that the president can, for now, block the news outlet from small places such as the Oval Office or Air Force One. Appealed · July 2 Perkins Coie v. D.O.J. In March, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to punish the law firm Perkins Coie for working for Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign. The order sought to strip its lawyers of security clearances and access to government buildings and officials. In May, a federal judge ruled that the order was unconstitutional and blocked the administration from enforcing it. The Trump administration has appealed the case. Read more › Docket ›

Jenner & Block v. D.O.J. Docket ›

American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President Docket ›

Zaid v. Executive Office of the President Docket ›

Larrabee v. Trump Docket ›

Doe 1 v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Docket ›

Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President Docket ›

Associated Press v. Budowich Docket ›

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr v. Executive Office of the President Docket ›