Filed Date: June 30, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged Los Angeles's "sanctuary city" policies. In 2017, the California State Legislature enacted the California Values Act (CVA) that, when implemented in Los Angeles, "restricted cooperation with federal immigration authorities and ordered that the LAPD shall not: [i]nvestigate, interrogate, detain, or arrest a person for civil immigration purposes; or [i]nquire into an individual’s civil immigration status." The act also "requires LAPD personnel to obtain approval from the Department’s Immigration Liaison Officer before transferring a suspect to federal authorities such as US-ICE or US-CBP based on a probable cause arrest."
In 2024, the City of Los Angeles also adopted its Sanctuary City Law titled the "Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement." The LA law does not allow city personnel to (1) collect information on an individual's immigration status, (2) detain individuals for Immigration Enforcement officials, (3) provide immigration agents access to city property, (4) make individuals in city custody available for interviews with immigration agents, or (5) participate in immigration operations with federal agents.
On June 30, 2025, the United States sued the City of Los Angeles, its mayor, and its city council in the District Court for the Central District of California. The U.S. alleged that Los Angeles's laws violated the Supremacy Clause in three ways: First, the U.S. claimed that federal law preempted the city's law by requiring "that local governments not prohibit or restrict information sharing with federal immigration officials regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual." Second, the U.S. claimed that the city's laws unlawfully regulated the federal government, since "[b]y refusing to honor civil detainers and warrants expressly authorized by Congress, Defendants have unlawfully eliminated these means for federal immigration officials to carry out their statutory functions." Third, the U.S. alleged that the city's laws unlawfully discriminated against the federal government "by picking and choosing which federal criminal laws it will follow."
The U.S. asked the court to issue a declaration finding that Los Angeles's laws violated the Supremacy Clause and an injunction barring the defendants from enforcing the laws.
The case was assigned to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jeremiah Price (7/14/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70672257/parties/united-states-v-city-of-los-angeles/
Olguin, Fernando Manzano (California)
Green, Paul Bartholomew (California)
Lyerla, Christopher (California)
Schanerberger, Evan William (California)
Skedzielewski, Sean (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70672257/united-states-v-city-of-los-angeles/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 1:14 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 30, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The United States Department of Justice in the second Trump Administration.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: