United States v. City of Rochester

A coalition of 49 cities, counties, and elected officials are pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to compel the city of Rochester to enforce its harmful immigration policies. Public Rights Project and Evergreen Legal Strategies filed an amicus brief on behalf of the coalition which shares Rochester’s goals of protecting the wellbeing of all residents.

This brief was filed in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, which aims to force Rochester to abandon its so-called “sanctuary policies.” In reality, Rochester’s approach is centered on prioritizing the health, safety, and well-being of the community, not on using local resources to enforce federal immigration laws. The brief explains that the Constitution gives local governments — not the federal government — the authority to make decisions about their communities. 

Relying on the insights of nearly 50 local governments and elected officials, we highlight the real benefits of so-called “sanctuary policies:”

• They make communities safer by building trust between law enforcement and all residents, so people will report crimes and cooperate with police.
• They strengthen local economies because immigrants play a vital role in the workforce across many industries.
• They support public health by ensuring people can access medical care without fear, protecting community well-being.

Our brief explains why, under existing law, the court should deny the federal government’s request for judgment.

Update:

On Feb. 6, 2026, a coalition of 137 cities, counties, and elected officials filed an amicus brief in support of Rochester’s motion to dismiss a case challenging its sanctuary policies.

The court previously dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) original complaint after Rochester amended its sanctuary policies. The DOJ then filed an amended complaint against the city. Rochester is arguing that its policies don’t conflict — and are not preempted by federal immigration law.

The brief explains the real benefits of so-called “sanctuary policies,” including making communities safer and strengthening local economies.

Read the amicus brief.

Update:

On September 1, 2026, the district court dismissed the Trump administration’s case against Rochester. The court ruled that the federal government can’t compel local governments to enforce federal immigration law, citing the Constitution’s anticommandeering doctrine. It also rejected the Trump administration’s claim that Rochester’s local policies regulate or discriminate against the federal government.

Read the decision.