WASHINGTON, DC – In the Justice Department’s ongoing legal battle with a number of New Jersey cities’ alleged sanctuary policies in conflict with the government’s interest in enforcing immigration law, the federal government is now citing the “current crisis of illegal immigration” in their latest filing to combat New Jersey’s reliance on past lower court decisions upholding their sanctuary policies.
This past May, the Justice Department filed suit against four New Jersey cities, specifically Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken, alleging the cities and their elected officials are obstructing the federal government from enforcing immigration law within the aforementioned cities.
According to the lawsuit filed by the Justice Department months earlier, the federal government opened their argument with, “While states and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way. And where inaction crosses into obstruction, local governments break federal law. That is what is happening across New Jersey right now. It is past time it ends.”
The lawsuit aimed at the four New Jersey cities largely mirrors the lawsuit announced against Boston, Massachusetts, at the onset of September, citing the likes of the Supremacy Clause as being the crux of the federal government’s argument against various sanctuary policies and practices taking place in various progressive states.
In a letter filed to the court on September 4th regarding the New Jersey lawsuit, the Justice Department wrote, “The current crisis of illegal immigration, which was allowed to reach critical levels after Ocean County was decided, requires a re-examination of that ruling,” referring to a 2021 decision by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upholding various sanctuary policies adopted in places like New Jersey.
According to the latest filing by the Justice Department, the Ocean County decision only examined a state law passed in New Jersey regarding collaborative efforts with the federal government in immigration enforcement operations, but highlights that the four cities at issue in the lawsuit are engaging in practices that exceed the scope of New Jersey’s original Immigrant Trust Directive.
“[T]his lawsuit challenges Defendants’ individual policies, which either exceed the statewide ITD or mirror it, demonstrating that the cities themselves are directly and independently responsible for issuance and implementation of the policies,” the September 4th letter to the court reads.
Attorneys representing the federal government further claim unlawful discrimination against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as seen in the Boston lawsuit, noting that it’s seemingly the only agency the New Jersey cities refuse to engage in any meaningful collaboration with, despite willingly collaborating with other federal agencies like the FBI or DEA.
This past May, the Justice Department filed suit against four New Jersey cities, specifically Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken, alleging the cities and their elected officials are obstructing the federal government from enforcing immigration law within the aforementioned cities.
According to the lawsuit filed by the Justice Department months earlier, the federal government opened their argument with, “While states and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way. And where inaction crosses into obstruction, local governments break federal law. That is what is happening across New Jersey right now. It is past time it ends.”
The lawsuit aimed at the four New Jersey cities largely mirrors the lawsuit announced against Boston, Massachusetts, at the onset of September, citing the likes of the Supremacy Clause as being the crux of the federal government’s argument against various sanctuary policies and practices taking place in various progressive states.
In a letter filed to the court on September 4th regarding the New Jersey lawsuit, the Justice Department wrote, “The current crisis of illegal immigration, which was allowed to reach critical levels after Ocean County was decided, requires a re-examination of that ruling,” referring to a 2021 decision by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upholding various sanctuary policies adopted in places like New Jersey.
According to the latest filing by the Justice Department, the Ocean County decision only examined a state law passed in New Jersey regarding collaborative efforts with the federal government in immigration enforcement operations, but highlights that the four cities at issue in the lawsuit are engaging in practices that exceed the scope of New Jersey’s original Immigrant Trust Directive.
“[T]his lawsuit challenges Defendants’ individual policies, which either exceed the statewide ITD or mirror it, demonstrating that the cities themselves are directly and independently responsible for issuance and implementation of the policies,” the September 4th letter to the court reads.
Attorneys representing the federal government further claim unlawful discrimination against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as seen in the Boston lawsuit, noting that it’s seemingly the only agency the New Jersey cities refuse to engage in any meaningful collaboration with, despite willingly collaborating with other federal agencies like the FBI or DEA.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments