The ongoing debate over sanctuary cities and states in the United States has reached a fever pitch in August 2025, as a wave of legal, political, and local government actions have unfolded in response to threats from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Trump administration. The conflict centers on so-called sanctuary policies—local and state rules that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. These policies have divided communities, prompted lawsuits, and forced mayors, governors, and attorneys general to draw battle lines over the limits of federal power and the rights of states and cities to set their own law enforcement priorities.
In a high-profile move on August 19, 2025, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, made his stance unmistakably clear at a news conference. According to Stateline, Ferguson declared, “Pam Bondi seeks to have Washington state bend the knee to a Trump administration that, day by day, drags us closer to authoritarianism. That’s not going to happen.” This defiant posture set the tone for a cascade of written responses from cities and states across the country, including Albuquerque, Boston, Hoboken, Portland, and Seattle, as well as California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington itself. Many of these responses underscored that courts have so far upheld their right to limit cooperation with federal deportation efforts.
But not every city has chosen resistance. In Louisville, Kentucky, officials decided to resume cooperation with federal immigration authorities after halting compliance with detainer requests in 2017. This reversal came in the wake of what Attorney General Bondi described as a “strong written warning” to the city. Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg, a Democrat, explained his decision in a July 22 statement, saying, “Cities on the sanctuary city list right now are experiencing a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids. I’ve talked with leaders within our immigrant community before I made this decision. I heard their fears loud and clear about current federal policies and ICE actions. I also heard that they want Louisville off the federal sanctuary city list.”
Attorney General Bondi has kept up the pressure, issuing a revised list in August 2025 that names sanctuary cities, counties, and states. Philadelphia found itself included, a move that has drawn criticism from city leaders. Meanwhile, other cities have moved to further entrench their sanctuary status. Rochester, New York, for example, amended its municipal code in August to strengthen its non-cooperation policies by introducing disciplinary measures for personnel who violate the rules. New York State Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, has been a vocal supporter of such policies. She issued a statement backing Rochester’s approach, noting that these policies “keep communities safe and allow local law enforcement to use resources to address local public safety priorities.”
Boston’s Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu has also spoken out, sending a letter to federal authorities that accused the Trump administration of “false and continuous attacks” designed to “divide, isolate, and intimidate our cities, and make Americans fearful of one another.” The rhetoric on both sides has only intensified as the legal battles have escalated.
The judiciary has become a central arena for this conflict. On August 22, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued a new order extending a preliminary injunction to protect 50 areas in 14 states from President Donald Trump’s executive orders and agency directives aimed at punishing sanctuary jurisdictions. The injunction covers a wide swath of the country, including California, Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. Judge Orrick’s ruling found that the executive orders and directives in question are likely unconstitutional, as they violate local governments’ rights to set their own limits on immigration enforcement cooperation.
The Trump administration, however, is not backing down. On August 26, 2025, administration lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the administration’s actions so far “merely instruct agencies to assess federal grant programs to determine where they can lawfully add immigration related conditions.” A hearing on the matter is scheduled for October 22, 2025, and is expected to be a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over federal versus local authority in immigration enforcement.
While the legal fight rages in federal court, similar disputes are playing out at the state level. In New Jersey, the architect of the state’s sanctuary policy, former Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, has taken a stand against a Trump administration lawsuit targeting Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City, and Paterson for their local immigration policies. On August 28, 2025, Grewal filed a letter to the federal judge overseeing the case, arguing that the lawsuit “has no legal standing and violates the 10th Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from compelling states to enforce national immigration laws.”
Grewal’s letter points out that Newark and Hoboken follow a 2018 New Jersey statewide directive that delineates how and when local police can assist federal immigration agents. The Trump administration’s lawsuit, filed in May 2025, claims that these local rules interfere with federal law. But Grewal cited multiple court rulings, including one from 2020, that rejected similar claims against sanctuary policies. He urged the judge to “quickly dismiss the case to protect public safety.”
These legal arguments are not just academic. At stake are the lives and safety of millions of immigrants, as well as the authority of local governments to determine how best to allocate their law enforcement resources. Supporters of sanctuary policies argue that local police should not be forced to act as federal immigration agents, as doing so can erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, making cities less safe overall. Critics, on the other hand, contend that sanctuary policies undermine federal law and create safe havens for individuals who may be in the country unlawfully.
The current legal landscape is shaped by a series of court decisions that have generally favored sanctuary jurisdictions, finding that the federal government cannot unilaterally force states and cities to enforce federal immigration laws. However, the Trump administration’s continued efforts to tie federal funding to immigration cooperation, and to challenge sanctuary policies through litigation, have kept the issue at the forefront of national politics.
As the October hearing approaches, all eyes will be on the federal courts to see whether the latest round of executive orders and agency directives will stand or be struck down. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between federal and local governments—and for the lives of immigrants across the United States. With both sides digging in, the sanctuary city debate shows no signs of fading from the national spotlight.
For now, cities and states are standing their ground, asserting their right to set their own policies despite mounting federal pressure. The next chapter in this ongoing saga will be written in the courts, but the impact will be felt in neighborhoods and communities from coast to coast.
