United States v. Newark

A coalition of 66 cities, counties, and elected officials are pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to compel New Jersey cities to enforce its harmful immigration policies. On the coalition’s behalf, Public Rights Project filed an amicus brief, arguing the county’s policies are good for their communities.

The brief was filed in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, which aims to force four New Jersey cities to abandon their so-called “sanctuary policies” and engage in federal immigration enforcement. The cities filed motions to dismiss the case, arguing their local policies are legal and that the district court and appeals court (Third Circuit) have already rejected identical challenges in the past. 

The brief explains that the Constitution gives local governments — not the federal government — the authority to make decisions about their communities’ police resources. It also highlights 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 dismiss the case.

PRP recently filed a brief in support of Rochester, New York, in a similar challenge.

Read the amicus brief.

Update:
On June 24, 2026, a federal court dismissed DOJ’s case against the four New Jersey cities. It found that DOJ’s complaint failed to address a state policy governing how local police interact with immigration authorities. Federal courts have upheld this policy twice before. This is a win for local governments that know how to best deploy resources for community well-being.