Lawsuit initiated by Trump spotlights disparity between Eric Adams and City Council regarding city sanctuaries and immigration matters.
In a significant turn of events, the Justice Department (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against New York City leaders, alleging that they have thwarted the Trump administration's enforcement of federal immigration law. The lawsuit, filed on July 24, 2025, in the Eastern District of New York, accuses Mayor Eric Adams, the City Council, and related city officials of violating the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by obstructing federal immigration enforcement.
The lawsuit centres around New York City's "sanctuary" policies, a cluster of laws that bar the city from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in most circumstances. These policies, according to the DOJ, impede federal law enforcement and have led to serious consequences, including the shooting of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer earlier in July 2025.
The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction to prevent New York City from enforcing these sanctuary policies. Both Mayor Eric Adams and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams (no relation) have been named as defendants in the lawsuit.
Mayor Adams' administration believes that the job of a mayor is to protect the safety of every person in the city. In response to the lawsuit, Spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus stated that Mayor Adams has worked to protect the safety of the city for nearly four years. However, Adams has been clear that the city's current sanctuary laws go too far when it comes to dealing with violent criminals on the streets.
The lawsuit notes Mayor Adams' directive for First Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro to sign an executive order to allow federal immigration officials to reestablish an office on Rikers Island. This move was met with opposition from the City Council, which refused to reexamine the sanctuary laws despite Adams' urging.
The City Council has not taken kindly to being named in the lawsuit, particularly in wake of a lawsuit targeting the entire city. The Council is not pleased that Mayor Adams is again pointing the finger at them. The lawsuit mentions the City Council suing to stop the controversial executive order intended to allow federal immigration officials to work on Rikers Island.
Legal experts note that the DOJ’s case faces hurdles due to established legal doctrines such as the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, which prevents the federal government from compelling state or local governments to enforce federal law. New York’s sanctuary policies align with legal precedents like New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), which support state and local authority not to enforce certain federal mandates. Additionally, New York courts have upheld local restrictions on immigration enforcement, reinforcing the legal standing of sanctuary policies.
Mayor Adams and the DOJ have both denied that a quid pro quo agreement exists, in which Adams entered into an agreement with the Trump administration to cooperate on immigration enforcement in exchange for dropping federal corruption charges.
The case is ongoing in federal court and represents a key front in clashes over immigration enforcement and local-federal relations. As the legal battle unfolds, the future of New York City's sanctuary policies remains uncertain.
- The ongoing lawsuit over New York City's sanctuary policies, which has been filed by the Justice Department and names both Mayor Adams and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams as defendants, is a significant development in the ongoing debate about immigration policy-and-legislation, politics, and crime-and-justice.
- The lawsuit, centering around the city's sanctuary laws that bar city officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities in most circumstances, has raised questions about the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, general-news, and the boundaries of local-federal relations, as legal experts point out that the case faces hurdles due to established legal doctrines.
