WASHINGTON, DC – In the wake of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s issuance of legal threats against what the current administration deems to be sanctuary cities and states, various state and local leaders have responded AG Bondi’s promise of lawfare with uttered intentions or ongoing actions of defiance.
Back in August, AG Bondi kicked off a letter writing campaign of sorts, with the head of the Justice Department delivering strong condemnations toward city and state leaders of what the current administration defines as “sanctuary policies and practices” which essentially undermine federal immigration enforcement operations.
As previously reported in Law Enforcement Today, Colorado Governor Jared Polis was among those to receive the aforementioned letter from AG Bondi, which read in part, “You are hereby notified that your jurisdiction has been identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement to the detriment of the interests of the United States,” additionally noting that the Justice Department is placing such sanctuary cities in their proverbial crosshairs for legal action.
In the weeks following AG Bondi’s foreshadowing of legal action, numerous cities and states have responded to the Justice Department with claims that courts have generally allowed state and local governments to limit their cooperation with immigration enforcement operations, with state and local officials from California, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and others being among the defiant respondents.
Washington Governor Bob Ferguson claimed AG Bondi’s strongly worded letter was tantamount to “authoritarianism,” saying in an August 19th press conference, “Pam Bondi seeks to have Washington state bend the knee to a Trump administration that, day by day, drags us closer to authoritarianism. That’s not going to happen.”
Meanwhile, two New Hampshire laws passed back in May will be going into effect in January 2026, which the aforementioned laws described as “anti-sanctuary city bills” will effectively prohibit any city within the state from adopting what the current administration defines as practices under the umbrella term of sanctuary city.
New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte said at the time of signing the bills, “There will be no sanctuary cities in New Hampshire. Period. End of story.”
Democrat Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg has opted to begrudgingly comply with the Justice Department’s request for additional cooperation with federal immigration detainers, admitting that by continuing sanctuary practices they’ll put a de facto target on the city’s back for an “increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids.”
Conversely, Rochester, New York has apparently fortified their efforts to uphold a sanctuary city by way of amending their municipal code to discipline city employees who lend any sort of cooperation with federal law enforcement engaged in immigration enforcement operations.
Furthermore, in late August, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick extended a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive orders that threatened to withhold various federal grants to cities and states who defied the likes of issued immigration detainers.
The Trump administration is actively fighting the case in question, having requested the case be dismissed since all the administration has done thus far is “instruct agencies to assess federal grant programs to determine where they can lawfully add immigration related conditions,” with the next hearing in the case slated for October 22nd.
Back in August, AG Bondi kicked off a letter writing campaign of sorts, with the head of the Justice Department delivering strong condemnations toward city and state leaders of what the current administration defines as “sanctuary policies and practices” which essentially undermine federal immigration enforcement operations.
As previously reported in Law Enforcement Today, Colorado Governor Jared Polis was among those to receive the aforementioned letter from AG Bondi, which read in part, “You are hereby notified that your jurisdiction has been identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement to the detriment of the interests of the United States,” additionally noting that the Justice Department is placing such sanctuary cities in their proverbial crosshairs for legal action.
In the weeks following AG Bondi’s foreshadowing of legal action, numerous cities and states have responded to the Justice Department with claims that courts have generally allowed state and local governments to limit their cooperation with immigration enforcement operations, with state and local officials from California, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and others being among the defiant respondents.
Washington Governor Bob Ferguson claimed AG Bondi’s strongly worded letter was tantamount to “authoritarianism,” saying in an August 19th press conference, “Pam Bondi seeks to have Washington state bend the knee to a Trump administration that, day by day, drags us closer to authoritarianism. That’s not going to happen.”
Meanwhile, two New Hampshire laws passed back in May will be going into effect in January 2026, which the aforementioned laws described as “anti-sanctuary city bills” will effectively prohibit any city within the state from adopting what the current administration defines as practices under the umbrella term of sanctuary city.
New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte said at the time of signing the bills, “There will be no sanctuary cities in New Hampshire. Period. End of story.”
Democrat Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg has opted to begrudgingly comply with the Justice Department’s request for additional cooperation with federal immigration detainers, admitting that by continuing sanctuary practices they’ll put a de facto target on the city’s back for an “increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids.”
Conversely, Rochester, New York has apparently fortified their efforts to uphold a sanctuary city by way of amending their municipal code to discipline city employees who lend any sort of cooperation with federal law enforcement engaged in immigration enforcement operations.
Furthermore, in late August, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick extended a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive orders that threatened to withhold various federal grants to cities and states who defied the likes of issued immigration detainers.
The Trump administration is actively fighting the case in question, having requested the case be dismissed since all the administration has done thus far is “instruct agencies to assess federal grant programs to determine where they can lawfully add immigration related conditions,” with the next hearing in the case slated for October 22nd.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments