The U.S. Justice Department has requested that a federal judge allow its lawsuit against four New Jersey cities—Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken—to proceed, contending that their sanctuary-style policies obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

The complaint alleges that the local ordinances permit individuals to evade federal custody, hamper information sharing with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and bar cooperation with detainer requests absent a judicial criminal warrant—even for serious offences.

In the filing the administration asserts that “these sanctuary policies are illegal and must be enjoined.”

City officials have urged the court to dismiss the suit on grounds of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

They argue that the statewide New Jersey “Immigrant Trust Directive”, which limits cooperation with federal immigration agents, remains in place and would not be altered by a ruling against the municipal policies—therefore the federal government cannot claim injury.

The cities contend that their policies regulate only local personnel and do not burden the federal government directly, citing the voluntary nature of federal requests under immigration law.

This legal confrontation marks another high-profile effort by the Donald Trump administration to challenge local autonomy in immigration enforcement.

The lawsuit seeks both a judgment declaring the policies unlawful and an injunction compelling the cities to cease implementing them.

A federal judge, Evelyn Padin, is reviewing motions to dismiss and expects to issue a written ruling without proceeding to oral arguments.

The outcome could have broader implications for the balance between federal authority and local jurisdictions in immigration control.