COLUMN: The Trump administration suffers another legal setback in Los Angeles

A Relying on the Supremacy Clause

In its initial lawsuit, the DOJ invoked the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, asserting that Los Angeles and its officials cannot single out the federal government for unfavorable treatment, which they argue would constitute a form of institutional discrimination against federal authority.

The federal government also argued that the Los Angeles ordinance goes far beyond similar laws enacted in other U.S. jurisdictions, actively seeking to undermine the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts—a serious allegation that the judge found to be insufficiently substantiated.

Alarmist Language in Court Documents

The DOJ’s complaint contained particularly dramatic language, asserting that the country is facing a crisis of illegal immigration and that federal efforts to address it are being hindered by sanctuary cities like Los Angeles, which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, even upon explicit request.

The documents went so far as to suggest deploying the California National Guard and the U.S. Marines to quell the chaos, presenting a direct confrontation with federal authorities as an inevitable consequence of the sanctuary city law—a framing that several legal experts have described as exaggerated and politically calculated.

This kind of inflammatory language in an official court document deeply concerns me—when campaign rhetoric seeps into legal proceedings, the entire judicial system pays the price in terms of credibility.

A Victory Celebrated by City Hall

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass reacted strongly to the decision, stating that the ruling affirms the city’s commitment to protecting immigrants and all Angelenos from what she describes as the administration’s attacks on all fronts.

Karen Bass also warned that the city remains prepared for a possible appeal by the federal administration, stating unequivocally that Los Angeles will always fight back against anyone who attacks the city—a defiant stance that illustrates the ongoing tension between Democratic city officials and the Trump administration.

The city attorney is also celebrating the decision

Hydee Feldstein Soto called the decision a clear legal victory, emphasizing that the ruling reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their own staff and resources, without unwarranted federal interference.

This legal victory strengthens the position of Democratic cities across the country facing similar pressure from the federal administration regarding their immigration policies, setting a potentially useful precedent for other municipalities engaged in comparable legal battles.

I admire Karen Bass’s steadfastness on this issue, although I recognize that this ongoing legal battle between Washington and major Democratic cities ultimately drains public resources that should serve citizens rather than political egos.

Mass Arrests in Southern California

The DOJ’s lawsuit was filed amid a wave of raids by federal immigration agents in Southern California, which led to the arrest of thousands of immigrants and sparked widespread protests throughout the region.

These large-scale operations have exacerbated the already high tensions between the federal government and local California authorities, transforming a technical legal debate over intergovernmental immunity into a much broader symbol of the political confrontation between Washington and the nation’s major progressive cities.

A climate of fear documented by several organizations

Several community organizations and immigrant rights advocates have documented a growing climate of fear in the communities targeted by these operations, with some residents even avoiding reporting crimes they have been victims of for fear of reprisals related to their immigration status.

This climate precisely reinforces the argument put forward by the City of Los Angeles: without clear guarantees of non-cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities, public trust in law enforcement is dangerously eroding, compromising the safety of all residents, regardless of their status.

No one should be afraid to call the police after being the victim of a crime—it is a basic principle of public safety that the Trump administration seems willing to sacrifice to score political points.

A second defeat in just a few days

Just two days before the Los Angeles ruling, federal Judge Evelyn Padin, appointed by former President Joe Biden, dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by the DOJ against four New Jersey cities: Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken, and Paterson.

Judge Padin ruled that the Trump administration lacked the legal standing to challenge these policies, largely because they faithfully reflect the state’s “trust in immigrants” directive, a policy that has been in effect statewide in New Jersey since 2018.

A State Policy Already Uphheld by the Courts

This policy, initially implemented under former Governor Phil Murphy, was recently codified into law by current Governor Mikie Sherrill, and it has already been upheld by the courts on several occasions, notably during an unsuccessful attempt by two Republican-majority counties to challenge it in 2019.

The judge concluded that even if the federal government succeeded in overturning the local policies of Newark and other municipalities, the state directive would remain fully in effect, thereby rendering any harm alleged by the federal government largely theoretical and without any real practical consequence.

Two defeats in two days in two different states is no coincidence—it’s a sign of a sloppy legal strategy, built on shaky legal grounds to appease an electoral base rather than to win in court.

Multiple Lawsuits Across the Country

The Trump administration, through its Department of Justice, has stepped up lawsuits against sanctuary cities and states across the United States since the start of its second term—a strategy initially aimed at forcing recalcitrant Democratic jurisdictions to yield on the issue of immigration.

However, this aggressive legal approach has repeatedly encountered legal obstacles, as federal courts—including some judges appointed by Republican presidents—have consistently rejected the constitutional arguments put forward by the DOJ in these cases.

A Growing Political and Financial Cost

Each legal defeat of this nature represents not only a symbolic political setback for the Trump administration but also a direct financial cost to American taxpayers, who are funding these protracted legal battles with no guarantee of long-term success.

Critics, including some within the conservative camp itself, are beginning to publicly question the actual effectiveness of this strategy of systematic legal confrontation with major Democratic cities, suggesting that more collaborative approaches could yield better concrete results in enforcing immigration laws.

Even some conservatives are beginning to see through this losing strategy—and frankly, it was about time someone in that political camp asked the real questions about the effectiveness of this approach.

A battle that continues on several fronts

Despite this setback, the DOJ is actively pursuing another lawsuit against the state of New Jersey, this time seeking to overturn an executive order that restricts federal immigration agents’ access to state properties, as well as a law prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from wearing masks during operations.

These measures, adopted under Governor Mikie Sherrill’s administration, illustrate the ongoing determination of Democratic-led states to impose concrete limits on federal immigration operations within their borders, despite constant pressure from Washington.

An Institutional Conflict Far from Resolved

These ongoing legal conflicts between the federal government and Democratic states highlight a deep institutional divide that goes far beyond the simple issue of immigration, touching on the very foundations of American federalism and the division of powers between Washington and local governments.

Until this fundamental tension is resolved by a definitive Supreme Court ruling or a shift in political approach, federal courts across the country will likely continue to be overwhelmed by similar lawsuits pitting Washington against major Democratic-led urban jurisdictions.

This is no longer just a debate over immigration; it is an institutional war of attrition that is draining the courts, taxpayers, and the patience of millions of Americans caught between two irreconcilable visions of the country.

A precedent that could weaken other lawsuits

Judge Olguin’s ruling in the Los Angeles case sets an important legal precedent that could undermine other similar lawsuits filed by the DOJ against sanctuary cities elsewhere in the United States, particularly those based on comparable arguments related to the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

Constitutional law experts believe that this double defeat, combined with the one in New Jersey, could force the Trump administration to fundamentally rethink its overall legal strategy regarding the enforcement of immigration laws in uncooperative jurisdictions.

A Possible Escalation to Higher Courts

Despite these setbacks at the trial court level, nothing prevents the Trump administration from appealing these cases to higher federal courts, or even eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the current composition of the justices could prove more favorable to the federal government’s arguments.

This possibility maintains a climate of persistent legal uncertainty for sanctuary cities across the country, which must continue to prepare to defend their policies before higher courts in the months and years to come.

I am under no illusions: this battle is far from over, and I fear that the current Supreme Court may ultimately rule in favor of an administration that prioritizes confrontation over collaboration.

Judges with diverse political leanings are reaching the same conclusions

It is telling that the rulings against the Trump administration in these sanctuary city cases come from judges with diverse backgrounds—some appointed by Democratic presidents—but are based on widely recognized, nonpartisan legal principles regarding federalism and the constitutional separation of powers.

This judicial convergence, despite the diversity of the judges’ political backgrounds, suggests that the DOJ’s legal arguments suffer from fundamental structural weaknesses rather than mere political bias isolated to a single court.

A Notable Silence from the White House

Neither the White House nor the Department of Justice immediately responded to requests for comment regarding this double judicial defeat—a silence that stands in stark contrast to the administration’s usual rhetorical aggressiveness on immigration issues during public appearances and press conferences.

This strategic silence could reflect a tacit, behind-the-scenes acknowledgment of the real legal weaknesses in the confrontational strategy adopted so far, without the administration publicly abandoning its hard line on immigration.

This silence from the White House sometimes speaks louder than any press release—when one is convinced of being right, one does not generally hide behind silence.

A symbolic but fragile victory for residents

For immigrant communities in Los Angeles and the affected cities in New Jersey, these court rulings offer temporary relief, but the threat of an appeal or new legal action continues to weigh heavily on the daily lives of many families already living in uncertainty.

Several immigrant advocacy organizations emphasize that the anxiety generated by these protracted legal battles causes real psychological and social harm, regardless of the final outcome of the court proceedings—a human cost rarely taken into account in purely legal analyses of these cases.

Ongoing Community Mobilization

Despite this legal victory, several community organizations continue to mobilize their resources to inform residents of their legal rights when dealing with federal immigration agents, anticipating that immigration enforcement operations will continue regardless of the final outcome of these specific legal proceedings.

This persistent community vigilance reflects a deep and understandable mistrust of the federal administration’s long-term intentions, even after a legal victory as clear-cut as the one achieved by Los Angeles before Judge Olguin.

These legal victories, as significant as they may be, are not enough to erase the daily anxiety experienced by entire families—it is a stark reminder that the law and human experience do not always align perfectly.

Millions of dollars swallowed up by litigation

These protracted legal battles, both in Los Angeles and New Jersey, are draining considerable financial resources from both sides, as municipalities are forced to hire large legal teams to defend themselves against federal lawsuits whose legal basis has repeatedly been found to be insufficient in court.

This waste of public funds, at both the federal and municipal levels, raises legitimate questions about the fiscal responsibility of a legal strategy that systematically fails, without any serious reassessment appearing to take place within the Trump administration.

A striking contrast to the announced budget priorities

Ironically, this continued expenditure of public resources on legal battles that are lost before they even begin comes at the very same time that the Trump administration has implemented widespread budget cuts to several social and public health programs—a contrast that many critics do not hesitate to publicly highlight.

This imbalance between the costly legal onslaught against sanctuary cities and the cuts imposed on programs essential to ordinary Americans illustrates, according to many analysts, political priorities that are disconnected from the real needs of the population.

It is hard not to be outraged by this contrast: millions spent on prosecuting cities that protect their residents, while essential health programs face severe budget cuts.

An Administration That Favors Confrontation

This legal case, like several others involving the Trump administration and Democratic-led jurisdictions, reveals a clear preference for direct confrontation over negotiation or institutional collaboration—an approach that rarely yields concrete and lasting results in public policy.

This tendency to systematically take political disagreements to court, rather than seeking legislative or administrative compromises, contributes to growing polarization between Washington and major American cities, ultimately to the detriment of citizens on both sides of this divide.

A Disturbing Precedent for the Future of Federalism

Beyond the specific case of Los Angeles, this issue raises broader questions about the future of American federalism and the ability of different levels of government to coexist without constantly resorting to the courts to arbitrate their fundamental political disputes.

If this trend toward systematic legal confrontation persists, it could permanently redefine relations between the federal government and local authorities in the United States, with consequences that will extend far beyond the specific issue of immigration to affect the country’s entire institutional framework.

What concerns me most about this issue is not so much the specific legal outcome, but rather what this strategy of constant confrontation reveals about the current state of American governance.

An Increasingly Clear Legal Consensus

Several constitutional law professors consulted by various U.S. media outlets point out that the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, repeatedly invoked by the Department of Justice, was never intended to force local governments to actively cooperate with specific federal priorities, but rather to prevent states from directly discriminating against federal operations themselves.

This legal distinction, reiterated by several judges in separate cases across the country, suggests that the Trump administration is attempting to stretch a constitutional doctrine far beyond its recognized historical scope—a strategy that many legal experts describe as bold but legally tenuous.

Implications for Other Federal Cases

This precedent could also affect other cases where the federal government seeks to impose specific conditions on local governments in exchange for federal funding—an issue that extends far beyond the question of immigration alone to encompass the entire spectrum of fiscal relations between Washington and U.S. municipalities.

Specialized attorneys warn that if this judicial trend is confirmed in other federal circuits, the Trump administration may have to completely overhaul its legal approach toward recalcitrant jurisdictions on several domestic policy issues simultaneously.

When legal experts across the political spectrum begin to converge on the same conclusion, it becomes difficult to continue claiming that this is simply a problem of activist judges rather than a fundamentally flawed legal strategy.

A legal position that is becoming increasingly difficult to defend

Judge Fernando M. Olguin’s decision to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit against Los Angeles, combined with the nearly simultaneous dismissal of a similar lawsuit in New Jersey, paints a judicial picture that is becoming increasingly difficult for the Trump administration to defend regarding the issue of sanctuary cities.

A battle far from over

With a deadline of July 3, 2026, to amend its complaint, and the possibility of an appeal to higher courts still open, the Trump administration still has options to continue this legal battle, but each new setback reinforces the perception of a strategy of systematic confrontation that prioritizes political posturing over actual legal effectiveness.

I close this report with one conviction: as long as Washington chooses legal confrontation over dialogue with major American cities, it is ordinary citizens—on both sides of this divide—who will continue to pay the real price.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist