By MES Dispatch Staff
The Briefing
- U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ sanctuary city ordinance, ruling that the government’s allegations were insufficient to prove the law violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine.
- The judge allowed the Justice Department to file an amended complaint by July 3, keeping the possibility of renewed litigation despite the initial dismissal.
- The ordinance prevents Los Angeles city employees from investigating, arresting, or detaining individuals for immigration enforcement purposes unless serious offenses are involved.
- Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto stated the ruling reinforces the principle that local governments have authority over how they deploy their personnel and resources.
- The Trump administration had filed the original lawsuit in June 2025, alleging the sanctuary ordinance obstructed federal immigration enforcement efforts.
LOS ANGELES, CALIF. — A federal judge dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit seeking to overturn Los Angeles’ sanctuary city ordinance, finding the government failed to establish that the city law violates constitutional protections against federal overreach.
U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin granted the city’s motion to dismiss the complaint in a weekend ruling. The judge determined the government’s allegations were insufficient to demonstrate the ordinance violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, which prevents the federal government from directly regulating state and local governments’ operations.
Olguin noted in his ruling that the ordinance does not directly regulate the federal government but rather controls the actions of the city’s own agents and agencies. The judge granted the Justice Department permission to file an amended complaint by July 3, allowing the administration the opportunity to present revised legal arguments.
Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto said the dismissal represented a legal victory for the city. “This order reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources,” Feldstein Soto stated. She added that the ordinance’s purpose is to encourage crime victims and witnesses to report to the Los Angeles Police Department regardless of immigration status.
Mayor Karen Bass said the ruling affirmed the city’s commitment to protect immigrants from federal enforcement actions. “We know they could appeal, and we will be ready. We will always fight back when anyone attacks L.A.,” Bass said.
The lawsuit, filed by the Trump administration in U.S. District Court’s Central District in June 2025, alleged the country faces a crisis of illegal immigration and that the city’s sanctuary ordinance hinders federal enforcement efforts. The government stated that immigration agents had conducted large-scale operations in Southern California resulting in thousands of arrests and that federal authorities subsequently deployed the California National Guard and United States Marines personnel.
The Los Angeles ordinance, proposed in early 2023 and finalized following Trump’s 2024 election victory, prohibits city employees and city property from being used to investigate, cite, arrest, hold, transfer, or detain individuals for immigration enforcement purposes. An exception exists for law enforcement investigations involving serious crimes.
The ordinance further restricts city employees from seeking information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status unless necessary to provide a municipal service. Data or information that could identify a person’s immigration status must be treated as confidential.
The Justice Department argued in its filing that the ordinance goes beyond similar laws in other jurisdictions and is specifically designed to undermine federal immigration enforcement operations. The department invoked the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, contending that the city ordinance discriminates against the federal government by singling it out for adverse treatment.
The White House and Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the dismissal.