City of Boston defends public safety law that helps make it one of the safest big cities in the country

For immediate release: Nov. 17, 2025

Media contact: Jackie Jena, jackie@publicrightsproject.org

BOSTON, MA — The City of Boston, the safest large city in the United States, has asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice about its local authority. The DOJ is challenging a local law limiting the use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement.

The law, known as the Boston Trust Act, directs Boston police and other city officials to focus on public safety priorities rather than carrying out federal civil immigration arrests or holding people in jail based solely on ICE administrative requests.

In its complaint in U.S. v. Boston, the federal government argues that Boston and other cities must participate in federal immigration enforcement. It challenges parts of the Boston Trust Act that prevent city officials from making civil immigration arrests or holding people who otherwise aren’t under arrest just because ICE asks for their detention. The complaint also argues against provisions that limit when city officials may share personal information with federal immigration officers or use city resources to support civil immigration enforcement.

In its motion to dismiss, Boston makes clear that federal law doesn’t require cities to take part in civil immigration enforcement. The Trust Act simply directs how Boston’s own employees and resources may be used. The city also points out that the Constitution’s 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing state and local officials to carry out federal programs, and says the Department of Justice’s claims ignore that limit.

Since the Trust Act was enacted in 2014, Boston has become the safest major city in the U.S. and has benefited from a booming economy. The policy is designed to:

• Promote public safety by fostering trust between residents and local law enforcement
• Prevent crime by ensuring local resources are directed to criminal law enforcement
• Ensure Boston complies with state law, under which local officials lack the authority to detain someone based solely on a civil immigration detainer

The DOJ’s lawsuit against Boston is part of a broader effort to challenge local policies in cities and states across the country that limit the use of local resources for civil immigration enforcement. Courts in other cases have already rejected similar claims, confirming that local governments may set their own public safety priorities and decline to use local officers and jails as extensions of federal civil immigration agencies. 

“This is yet another attempt to punish cities for policies the federal government doesn’t like,” said Jill Habig, founder and CEO of Public Rights Project, which is representing the City of Boston. “The DOJ’s case has no legal basis and distorts core constitutional principles. We stand with Boston as they comply with federal law while protecting local policies that put communities and safety first.”

###

As a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, Public Rights Project helps local government officials fight for civil rights. We do this by building their capacity to protect and advance civil rights, convening and connecting them on issues of civil rights, and providing legal representation to governments to help them win in court on behalf of their residents. Since our founding, we’ve built a network of over 1,300 partners, including elected officials and 227 government offices across all 50 states, and helped recover over $46 million in relief for marginalized people. www.publicrightsproject.org