DOJ Sues NYC & Mayor Adams Over Sanctuary Policies, Citing Obstruction of Federal Immigration Law

By: Jerome Brookshire

In a sweeping legal action that could significantly alter the landscape of immigration enforcement across the country, the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit against New York City, Mayor Eric Adams, and several senior city officials over the city’s sanctuary city policies. The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of New York, argues that New York City’s longstanding refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities constitutes an unconstitutional obstruction of federal law and a direct violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

As reported by The New York Post, the lawsuit alleges that the city’s refusal to honor detainer requests, share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or cooperate with deportation proceedings has resulted in the release of thousands of criminal non-citizens back into the general public—many of whom, according to federal prosecutors, went on to commit violent crimes.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi delivered a forceful statement during a press conference in Washington on Thursday morning. “New York City has repeatedly chosen to shield dangerous criminals from federal authorities,” she said. “This sanctuary policy is not compassion—it’s complicity. The obstruction ends now.”

Bondi cited internal DOJ data indicating that more than 7,100 individuals with prior criminal convictions were released by New York City authorities in the past three years despite active detainer requests from federal immigration officials. Many of these individuals, she said, were implicated in assaults, robberies, and weapons-related offenses.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Justice Brett Shumate elaborated further, asserting that New York City has “long been a hub of resistance against lawful immigration enforcement,” and that the city’s actions had “put ideology ahead of public safety.”

According to legal filings obtained by The New York Post, the lawsuit hinges on the Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state or local laws. The Justice Department argues that New York City’s local ordinances—which prohibit city officials from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement except under very limited circumstances—violate this constitutional framework.

The city’s policies, the lawsuit claims, have created a de facto barrier to federal immigration enforcement, which the DOJ says has endangered the lives of federal officers, local residents, and crime victims.

In one section of the complaint, prosecutors cite specific incidents where ICE agents were forced to make arrests on city streets rather than in controlled environments such as jails—actions that DOJ officials say unnecessarily escalated risk to officers and the public.

The timing of the lawsuit is notable. Just days before the filing, an off-duty U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer was shot in the face during a botched robbery in Washington Heights, as reported by The New York Post. While the suspect’s immigration status has not been officially disclosed, federal officials confirmed that the shooter had been previously arrested and released by NYPD despite an active detainer.

“This tragic incident is precisely what happens when city officials prioritize political messaging over public safety,” Bondi stated. “We will not stand by as federal officers are put in harm’s way because of local negligence.”

While the lawsuit is entirely focused on sanctuary policies, it comes in the broader context of Mayor Eric Adams’s recent legal troubles. Earlier this year, Adams faced federal corruption charges, which were later dismissed by a U.S. district judge under circumstances that have generated considerable speculation. The New York Post previously reported that some political observers suspect a quid pro quo arrangement, whereby Adams would support the administration’s immigration agenda in exchange for leniency.

However, DOJ officials were quick to distance this new legal action from the prior corruption case. “This is not about Mayor Adams’s personal conduct,” Shumate emphasized. “This is about the city’s institutional resistance to federal law. The mayor is named in his official capacity as head of the city government.”

A spokesperson for Mayor Adams’s office declined immediate comment but indicated that the city’s legal team is preparing a formal response.

The New York Post report noted that this is not the first instance of the Trump administration targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. Over the past year, similar lawsuits have been filed against Los Angeles, the states of New York, Colorado, and Illinois, as well as municipalities including Rochester and several in New Jersey. However, this latest case represents the most direct legal confrontation between the federal government and a major U.S. city under President Trump’s second term.

Legal experts interviewed by The New York Post suggest that the outcome of this lawsuit could have wide-ranging consequences. If successful, the case could establish a federal precedent compelling other cities to roll back sanctuary policies or face the loss of federal funding and exposure to civil liability.

“This could be the legal test case that decides the future of sanctuary cities in America,” said one constitutional law professor familiar with the case.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to formally rule that New York City’s policies are unconstitutional and to require city officials to comply with federal immigration enforcement going forward. The Justice Department is also requesting expedited proceedings, citing what it calls “an ongoing threat to public safety.”

A preliminary hearing is expected to be scheduled in the coming weeks.

The case has already reignited debate nationwide over the role of local governments in shaping immigration policy. With violent crime and immigration remaining politically charged topics, the legal showdown between the Department of Justice and New York City promises to be both consequential and deeply contentious.