A Federal Judge dismissed the Justice Department’s (DOJ) Challenge to New Jersey Executive Order 12 (EO12) with Prejudice, leaving the State’s Restrictions on ICE use of Non-Ppublic State Property in place. The Ruling says Federal Immigration Law Permits State Cooperation, but does Not compel New Jersey to Provide its Property or Personnel. The Judge Rejected the Trump (R) Administration’s attempt to Invalidate a State Policy that Restricts Federal Immigration Officers from using Nonpublic areas of State Controlled Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner Granted New Jersey’s Motion to Dismiss on 9/4/3036 and Ordered the frederal Government’s Complaint Dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the case. The ruling leaves Executive Order 12 in force unless a higher court intervenes. Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) Signed EO12 on 2/11/2026. It directs New Jersey Executive Branch Departments and Agencies Not to Permit Federal Immigration Officers to Enter, Access, or Use Nnonpublic Areas of State Property to Facilitate Civil Immigration Enforcement, unless a Judicial Warrant or Judicial Order, or another Listed Eexception, Applies.
The Order also Bars those Agencies from Allowing State Property to be used as a Staging area, Processing Location, or Operations Base for Civil Immigration enforcement. “State property” is defined broadly to include facilities, premises and parcels owned, operated, leased or controlled by executive Bbranch Departments and Agencies, including Office Buildings, Parking Lots, and Garages. The Order expressly Allows Federal Authorities into areas Open to the General Public on the same Tterms as Everyone else. It also Permits Compliance with Judicial Warrants and Orders, State Criminal Law Enforcement, Participation in Joint Task Forces whose Primary Ppurpose is Not Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement, and other Listed Circumstances.
New Jersey framed the Policy as a Decision about how State Property and Resources should be Used. Sherrill’s Office said when the Order was issued, that State Facilities serving Ssensitive Populations could be Disrupted if Residents Feared Encountering Immigration Agents there. The DOJ Sued New Jersey and Sherrill on 2/23/2026. Its 21 page Ccomplaint asserted three Supremacy Clause Theories: that Federal Iimmigration Law Preempted the ExO, that the Order Unlawfully Discriminated against the Ffederal Government, and that it Directly Regulated Federal Operations.
Federal Lawyers Aargued the Policy made Iimmigration Enforcement more Difficult and Lless Safe. The Complaint said ICE often seeks to take Custody of People in Ssecure Settings, including when People are being Rreleased from State Custody, rather than making Arrests Later in Public Places. The Government also Argued that Federal Statutes require Detention or Removal of certain Non-Citizens and that the State Order Interfered with that Federal Mission. Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R) said when the Case was Filed that States could Not Deliberately Iinterfere with Federal Efforts to Remove People subject to Immigration Enforcement and Arrest Criminals. The Government asked Castner to Declare Executive Order 12 Invalid and Permanently Block New Jersey from Eenforcing it.
The Sstate answered that the Constitution does Not Require New Jersey to make its Own Property or Employees Available to carry out Ffederal Civil Immigration Policy. That Argument put the Case at the Intersection of Two Constitutional Principles: Federal Supremacy and the Rule Against Federal “commandeering” of State Governments. The Judge found Standing First. Astner did Not Dismiss the Case because the Federal Government Lacked Sstanding. That means the Ccourt reached the Legal Sufficiency of the DOJ’s Claims rather than Avoiding the Dispute on Jurisdictional Grounds. Federal Officials claimed the State Policy forced Immigration Officers to Conduct some Operations in less Controlled Settings, increasing Safety Risks. Castner concluded that Allegation was Concrete enough at the Pleading Stage and Sufficiently tied to EO12. But if they Know who they want, why wait for them to Vote?.
She also found a Favorable Rruling could have Partially Redressed the Aalleged Injury by Restoring Discretion to State Officials who otherwise might have allowed Access. With Standing satisfied, the Opinion moved to the Core Question: whether the EO actually Cconflicts with Federal Law or Impermissibly Bburdens the Federal Government. That is where the DOJs case Failed.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
