United States v. New Mexico

The city of Albuquerque filed a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ is challenging the city’s local authority to limit the use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement. Public Rights Project (PRP) is representing Albuquerque.

Albuquerque’s “Safer Community Places” ordinance promotes public safety by:

• Banning some forms of ICE activity on city-owned property.
• Protecting hospitals, schools, libraries, and other critical community spaces from ICE and ensuring federal immigration agents get judicial warrants before entering them.
• Requiring employers to notify employees within 24 hours of certain types of ICE presence at the workplace.

In its motion to dismiss, Albuquerque makes clear that federal law doesn’t require cities to take part in civil immigration enforcement. The city’s ordinance doesn’t obstruct federal enforcement  — it simply directs how city space and resources can be used as well as sets limits on entities controlling additional community spaces within the city. 

Albuquerque also points out that the Constitution’s 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing local officials to carry out federal immigration enforcement. Finally, the city argues that regulating local property and local employment requirements sits squarely within state and local authority.

Courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that declining to give assistance amounts to blocking enforcement. In a significant prior victory, PRP and the city of Boston successfully defeated a DOJ challenge to Boston’s Trust Act in May 2026. This marks the second motion to dismiss that PRP has filed on behalf of local governments defending public safety laws protecting immigrant communities.

Read the motion to dismiss.

–

Update: July 6, 2026

In an amended complaint against Albuquerque, DOJ raises the same claims against the city’s local ordinance as before, including that it discriminates against the federal government and violates federal law. On July 6, 2026, the city filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Albuquerque makes clear once again that federal law doesn’t require cities to take part in civil immigration enforcement and that its ordinance doesn’t obstruct federal enforcement — it simply restricts how city space and resources can be used, as well as sets limits on ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s use of sensitive community spaces within the city.

DOJ claims the ordinance creates an unconstitutional obstacle to immigration enforcement. Our brief argues that the ordinance simply forces the federal government to comply with the Fourth and 10th amendments and state and federal law.

Read the motion to dismiss.

–

Update: August 3, 2026

On August 3, 2026, the city of Albuquerque filed another motion to dismiss DOJ’s complaint. The federal government argues that Albuquerque’s ordinance is an obstacle to the enforcement of immigration laws. Yet, the agency also admits its immigration enforcement objectives are fully attainable despite Albuquerque’s ordinance. 

We argue that:

• The federal government can’t force Albuquerque — or its hospitals, school, shelters, libraries, or employers — to contribute their own resources toward ICE’s immigration enforcement. 
• ICE-issued administrative warrants don’t exempt the agency from the Fourth Amendment. The warrants aren’t granted by a neutral judge and can’t be used for criminal prosecution.
• When employers notify their workers after ICE has conducted an audit or raid, it’s not “harboring” people who are undocumented. 

State and local governments declining to give assistance to ICE aren’t blocking immigration enforcement. Courts have repeatedly rejected that idea. We’re urging the court to dismiss its case against Albuquerque once and for all.

Read the motion to dismiss.