Governor Blocks ICE—Trump DOJ Strikes Back

New Jersey’s Democrat governor brazenly blocks federal ICE agents from state properties, prompting President Trump’s DOJ to sue and defend America’s sovereignty against sanctuary sabotage.

Story Snapshot

DOJ sues New Jersey on February 23, 2026, over Governor Mikie Sherrill’s Executive Order No. 12 banning ICE from nonpublic state areas like jails and courthouses.
Suit claims order violates Supremacy Clause by obstructing federal immigration enforcement, discriminating against federal agents, and preempting national law.
Sherrill’s order includes a resident portal to report ICE interactions, escalating state interference in Trump’s deportation priorities.
Case filed in Trenton federal court (3:26-cv-01770); New Jersey vows to fight, continuing pattern of sanctuary defiance.

Executive Order Sparks Federal Lawsuit

Governor Mikie Sherrill issued Executive Order No. 12 on February 11, 2026, just weeks after her January 20 inauguration. The order prohibits ICE agents from entering nonpublic areas of state properties, including correctional facilities and courthouses, for civil immigration enforcement. It also bans using state property for staging or processing immigration actions. This directly hinders federal officers executing unchanged immigration statutes like 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226 and 1231 on detention and removal. Such restrictions treat federal agents differently from local law enforcement, creating operational chaos in facilities critical for public safety.

DOJ Charges Supremacy Clause Violations

The U.S. Department of Justice filed the lawsuit on February 23, 2026, in U.S. District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, under case number 3:26-cv-01770. The complaint alleges three counts of Supremacy Clause violations: preemption by obstructing federal law, intentional discrimination against federal officials, and unlawful regulation of federal functions. DOJ describes the order as an “intolerable obstacle” to President Trump’s immigration enforcement duties. Trump administration officials accuse New Jersey of harboring criminal offenders, undermining national security and the rule of law that conservatives demand.

New Jersey’s Defiant Response

Governor Sherrill defends the order as protecting residents from ICE actions she calls “lawless” and unconstitutional, citing alleged abuses like detaining children and citizens. She urges federal focus on ICE training rather than suing states. Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport calls the lawsuit “pointless” and pledges to defend immigrant safety while cooperating on public safety. This stance ignores federal authority, fueling frustrations among Americans tired of states prioritizing illegal immigrants over citizens and law enforcement.

Sherrill’s resident portal for reporting ICE interactions further signals state monitoring of federal operations, a blatant overreach that erodes constitutional federal supremacy.

Historical Precedents and Broader Conflict

This suit builds on Trump administration actions against sanctuary policies, including May 2025 lawsuits against New Jersey cities like Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken, which remain pending. Similar cases target California, Minnesota, Colorado, and cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Denver. These efforts uphold federal preemption under precedents like Arizona v. U.S. (2012), countering blue-state resistance to border security and deportation of criminal aliens.

New Jersey’s statewide executive order marks an escalation post-Sherrill’s inauguration, clashing with Trump’s second-term crackdown on illegal immigration that patriots support to restore order and protect communities.

Impacts on Enforcement and National Security

Short-term, the order delays ICE operations in state facilities, forcing workarounds that strain resources amid Trump’s mass deportation push. Long-term, a favorable ruling could set precedent weakening sanctuary policies nationwide, enabling effective enforcement. Affected parties include New Jersey immigrants shielded from arrests, ICE facing limits, and state facilities altering protocols. Economic costs hit taxpayers with legal fees; politically, it galvanizes Trump’s base against Democratic obstructionism that endangers families and erodes conservative values of law and order.