796 F.Supp.3d 494
N.D. Ill.2025Background
- The United States sued Illinois, Cook County, the Cook County Board, the City of Chicago, and individual officials challenging state/local “Sanctuary Policies” (Illinois WFA, Cook County Ordinance, Chicago WCO) as preempted by federal immigration law and violative of intergovernmental-immunity doctrines; it sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Policies largely bar local officials from honoring ICE detainers or administrative warrants, sharing non-public custody/release/contact information, and granting ICE access to detainees, while excepting federal criminal warrants.
- The United States alleged that the Policies have repeatedly impeded federal civil immigration enforcement (making arrests harder and more dangerous, causing releases into the community) and that §§ 1373 and 1644 of the INA require or preempt state restrictions on information-sharing.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; the court found the United States lacked Article III standing as to the individually named officials and the Cook County Board and dismissed those defendants.
- On the merits the court: (1) construed §§ 1373/1644 narrowly (to protect sharing of citizenship/immigration-status information only), (2) held those provisions are not valid preemption provisions because they regulate States (raising anticommandeering concerns), (3) rejected conflict/obstacle preemption because the INA’s cooperative provisions and detainers are permissive (requests), and (4) rejected intergovernmental-immunity claims because the Policies regulate state/local actors (not the federal government) and the U.S. failed to identify an appropriate comparator.
- The complaint was dismissed in full without prejudice; the United States may amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue government entities and officials | USA: continued enforcement of Sanctuary Policies causes real and imminent injury to federal enforcement and seeks injunctive relief | Defs: some individual defendants lack enforcement authority; standing must be shown for each defendant and claim | Court: USA has standing against Illinois, Cook County, Chicago for injunctive relief, but lacks standing as to Governor Pritzker, Cook County Board President, Sheriff, CPD Superintendent, Mayor; those claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Express preemption under 8 U.S.C. §§1373/1644 | USA: “regarding” in §1373 broadly preempts limits on sharing related info (release dates, custody, contact info) and thus preempts Sanctuary provisions | Defs: §1373 protects only sharing of citizenship/immigration-status; Policies target different categories of info; §1373/1644 regulate governments not private actors | Court: §1373/1644 cover only citizenship/immigration-status information; most challenged provisions are not expressly preempted; Chicago WCO clause prohibiting status-sharing would conflict with §§1373/1644 but §1373/1644 are not valid preemption provisions because they regulate States and implicate anticommandeering |
| Conflict/obstacle preemption (detainers, warrants, access, info) | USA: Policies obstruct INA objectives (expedited detention/removal) by blocking detainers, administrative warrants, access, and information | Defs: INA contemplates voluntary cooperation; detainers are requests not commands; States may refuse to cooperate without creating conflict | Court: No conflict preemption—INA’s cooperation provisions are permissive; refusing to assist does not frustrate Congressional scheme sufficiently; anticommandeering bars treating permissive INA expectations as mandatory |
| Intergovernmental immunity (discrimination and direct regulation) | USA: Policies discriminate against/regulate the federal government by denying ICE information/assistance that others receive or by effectively controlling federal operations | Defs: Policies regulate state/local actors equally or target enforcement context (not federal status); they do not directly regulate or control federal actors | Court: Claims fail—plaintiff did not identify a proper comparator to show discrimination; policies directly regulate only state/local officials (not federal actors), so no unlawful direct regulation under the doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal supremacy in immigration and preemption analysis)
- Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) (preemption analysis must consider whether a federal provision regulates private actors; anticommandeering principles)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (federal government may not commandeer state executive officials)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (anticommandeering and limits on federal directives to States)
- United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019) ("California II") (sanctuary law not preempted; refusing to help is not the same as impeding)
- McHenry County v. Raoul, 44 F.4th 581 (7th Cir. 2022) (States may decline to cooperate; INA cooperation provisions are permissive; intergovernmental-immunity analysis)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (conflict/obstacle preemption principles)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (foundational federalism and intergovernmental-immunity principles)
- Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) (state law preemption where state law frustrates federal objectives)