Judge dismisses Trump administration's lawsuit against LA over 'sanctuary city' ordinance

on June 23, 2026

U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin, in a ruling issued over the weekend, said the U.S. Justice Department may amend its claims against the city but not against individual defendants.

The judge agreed with the city that federal law doesn’t “expressly” preempt its ordinance, as the administration claims, because the relevant federal statute only clarifies that no cooperation agreement is required for state or local officials to communicate or cooperate with the government on certain immigration enforcement matters.

Federal courts have systematically dismissed several DOJ lawsuits targeting "sanctuary city" policies in major Democratic-led jurisdictions. These cases parallel the Los Angeles ruling by affirming that municipalities have constitutional authority over their local law enforcement personnel and taxpayer resources

In addition, Olguin said, he wasn’t persuaded by the argument the city’s ordinance was preempted, purportedly because it restricts sending, requesting, maintaining or exchanging citizenship or immigration status by forbidding city personnel from inquiring into or collecting this information in the first place.

“This order reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources,” LA City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said in a statement Monday. “The goal of this ordinance, and of LAPD’s immigration-related policies — which date back to Special Order 40 in the 1970s — is to encourage victims of and witnesses to crime to feel safe coming forward to seek help from LAPD regardless of their immigration status. It does not obstruct or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement operations.”

Representatives of the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent after regular business hours.

The complaint filed in June 2025, the Justice Department argues the city’s ordinance, “Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement,” is preempted by federal immigration law.

Case Information

Case No.: 2:25-cv-05917

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Core Legal Rulings

Local Resource Control: Judge Olguin rejected the DOJ's argument that L.A. unconstitutionally attempted to regulate federal operations. He ruled that the ordinance "controls the actions of the City's own agents and agencies," rather than directly regulating the federal government. 

Intergovernmental Immunity Doctrine: The court found that the federal government failed to plausibly demonstrate that the ordinance violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity or unlawfully discriminates against the federal government. 

Lack of Federal Preemption: The judge agreed with the city that federal immigration statutes do not "expressly" preempt L.A.’s municipal resource limits. 

Dismissal of Individual Officials: Judge Olguin dismissed all claims against Mayor Karen Bass, the Los Angeles City Council, and City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled. 

Permission to Amend: The ruling gave the Trump administration until July 3, 2026, to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies in its claims against the city itself. 

Cases of Note

Other 2026 Dismissals

The Boston Trust Act Case (United States v. City of Boston

In May 2026, a federal judge dismissed a nearly identical lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against Boston. The DOJ argued that the Boston Trust Act unconstitutionally obstructed federal authorities and led to the release of undocumented individuals accused of crimes. The judge threw out the case, ruling that the federal government cannot force local police officers to act as federal immigration detainer agents.

The Chicago Intergovernmental Immunity Dispute

The administration filed a federal lawsuit to block Chicago’s local sanctuary ordinances, which barred city departments from assisting in civil immigration operations. The district court sided with the city and handed the DOJ a swift defeat, mirroring the historical precedent set by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously ruled that the federal government could not unlawfully withhold grant funds to force municipal cooperation.