The lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Illinois and Chicago on Thursday, which challenges their policies restricting local law enforcement’s collaboration with federal immigration authorities, has led some to wonder if California and San Diego County—both of which have implemented similar “sanctuary” laws—might also face legal challenges.
The DOJ’s allegations assert that Illinois and Chicago officials are “thwarting” and “deliberately impeding” federal immigration efforts by prohibiting local law enforcement from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless there is a criminal warrant. This lawsuit coincides with President Donald Trump’s ongoing commitment to mass deportations, resulting in increased detentions and enforcement in various cities across the nation.
“Sanctuary cities are sanctuary for criminals,” remarked Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, on Thursday. “We’re going to hold sanctuary cities accountable. We’re going to take them on, and we’ll take them to court.”
“Every elected mayor, every elected governor, every elected city councilman should want to keep their community safe and remove public safety threats,” Homan added. “Your primary duty is to protect communities.”
California and San Diego County have established policies akin to those of Illinois and Chicago. In December, the San Diego County Board adopted a resolution to halt the use of county resources for immigration enforcement. California’s laws include Senate Bill 54, also known as the Values Act, which was enacted in 2017 to prevent state and local law enforcement from engaging in immigration enforcement, with exceptions for individuals convicted of specific crimes.
“It will be up to the courts to determine if these sanctuary policies essentially serve to impede immigration enforcement,” stated San Diego immigration attorney Cesar Luna.
“The federal government is responsible for enforcing immigration laws,” Luna remarked. “Sanctuary policies are not intended to obstruct immigration enforcement; rather, they aim to limit the engagement of local and state enforcement agencies in federal immigration matters.”
Luna described the lawsuit against Illinois and Chicago as a test case.
“The government won’t expend all its resources suing every locality without establishing a solid legal precedent,” Luna explained. “As we assess the arguments in this case, it will indicate whether they will extend their efforts to other cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, or New York that have similar immigration regulations.”
“I suspect he will likely turn to LA right after, if the case in Chicago works out for him,” Luna added, “followed by San Francisco, and then us.”
Luna pointed out that the Trump administration might have initially targeted Chicago and Illinois partly because California wields more power—both politically and economically.
The federal government previously sued California over SB 54 during Trump’s initial term but lost the case in 2019.
“The federal government cannot commandeer state and local resources to fulfill its inhumane immigration agenda,” declared California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a statement on Thursday. “We successfully defended SB 54 against an attack from the first Trump Administration—and we’re ready to do it again if necessary.”
Luna mentioned that the lawsuit against Chicago and Illinois likely serves as a means to gauge the public’s response as well.
“I believe there are political implications intertwined with immigration, which has been a contentious issue for the past six administrations,” Luna noted. “Politicians have historically leveraged immigration matters to either unite or divide voters, so it’s hard to believe that political motivations aren’t part of these decisions.”
