The clash over ICE access in New Jersey is now in federal court.
The Justice Department filed a 21-page lawsuit on Feb. 23 in U.S. District Court in Trenton seeking to block Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s executive order restricting access by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to nonpublic areas of state owned property.
Federal attorneys argue that the order violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and interferes with federal immigration enforcement authority.
Military.com reached out for comment to Sherrill's office, the New Jersey office of the attorney general, the White House, the Department of Justice and ICE.
Executive Order No. 12, dated Feb. 11, bars ICE from entering nonpublic areas of state owned property or using state facilities as staging and processing sites without a judicial warrant.
DHS Accuses New Jersey of Shielding Criminals
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sharply criticized the executive order.
This is legally illiterate. Enforcing federal immigration laws is a clear federal responsibility under Article I, Article II and the Supremacy Clause. - a DHS spokesperson to Military.com
“While New Jersey sanctuary politicians continue to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members and murderers onto their streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make New Jersey safe again,” the spokesperson added.
DHS said the order undermines efforts to detain and remove individuals convicted of serious crimes. The department cited five people it described as criminal noncitizens in New Jersey, including a Cuban national convicted of homicide and others convicted of sexual assault, child endangerment, rape and making a terrorist-like threat.
DHS claimed that limiting access to secure state facilities could force officers to conduct more at large arrests, increasing risk to officers and the public.
Feds Lay Out Their Case
In the complaint, federal attorneys argue the executive order “poses an intolerable obstacle to federal immigration enforcement” and unlawfully discriminates against the federal government.
The filing states the order prevents immigration officers from entering or using “nonpublic areas” of state property and from using state facilities as “a staging area, processing location or operations base.”
Justice Department lawyers contend the policy “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution” of federal immigration law and “substantially interferes with a core federal function,” including custodial transfers and detainer operations in secure facilities.
The government is asking the court to declare the executive order invalid and permanently block its enforcement.
ACLU Slams Federal Lawsuit
Civil liberties advocates in New Jersey defended the governor’s order, arguing that the state is not required to assist federal immigration enforcement and has the authority to control its property.
“New Jersey has taken significant steps to protect its communities from dangerous policies set by the Trump administration,” Amol Sinha, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey, told Military.com in a statement.
Gov. Sherrill’s executive order limiting the use of state property for federal immigration enforcement is a legally sound policy that exercises New Jersey’s right to control its resources and that prioritizes the safety and wellbeing of its residents.
The organization said the lawsuit ignores anti-commandeering principles rooted in the 10th Amendment, which generally prevent the federal government from compelling states to enforce federal law.
ICE Legal Clash Heads to Court
The case lands amid growing legal pressure on local and state governments over how they handle immigration holds, custody transfers and cooperation with federal agents.
A jury verdict against Suffolk County, New York, underscored the legal risk local governments can face when they hold people solely on ICE detainers without a judge signed warrant.
Jurors awarded $112 million to more than 670 immigrants over unlawful detention claims. That case moved into an appeal posture as county leaders warned of broader financial exposure tied to detainer practices and transfer policies.
Federal officials have also argued that cooperation inside secure facilities reduces the need for public facing arrests.
In Minnesota, federal officials linked a drawdown of about 700 immigration personnel to increased state and local cooperation, including agreements by county jails to transfer people subject to immigration holds, while confirming roughly 2,000 enforcement personnel would remain. The dispute highlighted how custodial transfers can shift enforcement away from street operations and reduce confrontation.
The broader pattern has included states using the courts to challenge federal immigration tactics as well.
Minnesota’s attorney general and local leaders sued DHS, ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection over a large scale enforcement surge, arguing the operation violated constitutional protections and state sovereignty and seeking emergency limits on federal activity.
The complaint in the New Jersey case does not currently have a scheduled hearing date.
