LA sanctuary law discriminates against US government, DOJ suit says

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Los Angeles on Monday, challenging its sanctuary ordinance on claims that it discriminates against the U.S. government and seeks to regulate federal law enforcement while enabling lawlessness.

Los Angeles aims to prohibit ICE from operating within city limits, "directly contrary to federal immigration law," according to the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin, an appointee of President Barack Obama, but no hearing has been set.

"The practical upshot of Los Angeles' refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities has, since June 6, 2025, been lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism," requiring deployment of military forces, stated the 21-page complaint signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Brett A. Shumate.

Causes of action under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution are preemption; unlawful regulation of and unlawful discrimination against the federal government. The court is asked to declare Los Angeles' Ordinance Number 188441 (codified at L.A. Admin. Code § 19.190 et seq.) as unlawful, unenforceable and void ab initio, and award fees to the U.S.

The 21-page complaint contends that after President Donald Trump was elected, the Los Angeles City Council began codifying into law its sanctuary policies "to thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations." The ordinance, "Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement" was signed by the mayor on Dec. 9, 2024.

As evidence of this intent, the lawsuit quoted Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez saying, when the ordinance was passed, that the city would not let Trump conduct deportations.

Asked for a response Monday, Soto-Martinez, who co-wrote the sanctuary city law, said in an email, "This baseless lawsuit only gets one thing right -- we refuse to stand by and let Donald Trump deport innocent families."

Mayor Karen Bass "more recently ... signaled her desire to thwart federal immigration policy," at a June 12 news conference during the riots and protests, the complaint said "[P]eace begins with ICE leaving Los Angeles. ... I want to tell him [President Trump] to stop the raids."

The mayor, city attorney, and other council members did not respond to email and telephone requests for comment.

The lawsuit, filed in the Central District Court of California in Los Angeles, names the city, Bass, the council and council president as defendants. U.S. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 2:25-cv-05917 (U.S. C.D., filed June 30, 2025).

"By assisting removable aliens in evading federal law enforcement, the City's unlawful and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to a lawless and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help end," U.S. Attorney Bilal A. Essayli in the Central District said in a news release Monday.

The lawsuit quotes the Constitution, the U.S code and case law to argue that: Congress has prohibited states and municipalities from refusing to cooperate with enforcement of federal law and Los Angeles is illegally discriminating against immigration officers by treating them differently than other law enforcement agents.

The city and some immigration attorneys and advocates contend that criminal arrest warrants are necessary to take custody of removable aliens. The complaint countered, "Congress made an explicit policy choice that such removals can be effectuated by civil arrest warrants for immigration enforcement."

The case law cited to support the supremacy and discrimination arguments includes: Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. (1941); South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. (1988), and Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. (1943).

It also cites 8 U.S.C. § 1373(b) and (b) as saying state and local authorities may not prohibit any government official or entity from sending citizenship or immigration status information to federal agencies.

"Critically, Congress passed the latter provision to fix a specific problem, after it observed 'certain states and localities were restricting their officials' cooperation with federal immigration authorities,'" the complaint noted. New York v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 951 F.3d (2d Cir. 2020). ... "State and local governments do not have 'an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by [their] officials' with federal immigration authorities. New York, 179 F.3d."

The lawsuit is part of a broader DOJ effort challenging sanctuary laws in other jurisdictions.