EDITORIAL: Los Angeles resists Trump — the judge sides with the sanctuary city

June 23, 2026: a federal judge confirms the right of cities to their own rules

On June 23, 2026, federal judge Fernando Olguin of California rejected the Trump administration's lawsuit against the Los Angeles municipal ordinance limiting the city's cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The ruling is clear: Los Angeles's policy is not unconstitutional. The Trump administration was nevertheless granted permission to file an amended complaint, which means this legal battle is not over.

This ruling matters not because it closes the debate — it does not — but because it confirms that sanctuary cities have the constitutional right to define how their police resources are used, without being compelled to put them at the service of federal immigration policies. It is a victory for federalism, in the most authentic sense of the word.

What a sanctuary city actually is

The term "sanctuary city" is often misunderstood, deliberately distorted by its opponents. A sanctuary city does not refuse to enforce criminal law. It does not shield criminals. What it does is refuse to use its own police resources to help federal ICE agents identify and apprehend immigrants without legal status — a function that falls under federal law, not municipal authority.

This principle — that local authorities are not obligated to put their resources at the service of federal policies — has been confirmed by American constitutional jurisprudence, notably through the "anti-commandeering" doctrine developed by the Supreme Court. Judge Olguin applied this doctrine to the situation of Los Angeles.

I defend the right of sanctuary cities not because I believe immigration should go unchecked, but because I believe in the distribution of power between levels of government. Forcing municipal police to become ICE agents destroys the trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities — and that trust is essential to public safety itself.

Federal law supersedes municipal law: the administration's position

The Trump administration contended that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution — which establishes the primacy of federal law — required Los Angeles to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The argument: if the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration, cities cannot adopt policies that interfere with the exercise of that jurisdiction.

That argument has a superficial logic. But it conflates two different things: obstructing federal law and simply not helping to enforce it. Los Angeles was not blocking ICE agents. It was not hiding immigrants. It was simply refusing to use its own officers and its own resources to conduct immigration operations on behalf of the federal government.

The anti-commandeering doctrine: a constitutional bulwark

The Supreme Court has established in several key rulings that the federal government cannot "commandeer" — that is, compel — state and city governments to put their resources at the service of federal policies. This doctrine protects not only progressive cities like Los Angeles, but also conservative states that sometimes refuse to cooperate with federal mandates they deem contrary to their interests.

There is a delicious irony here: the same constitutional doctrine that once allowed Southern states to resist federal civil rights mandates today protects progressive cities against Trump's immigration policies. Federalism does not choose its beneficiaries.

The anti-commandeering doctrine is one of those constitutional principles that fascinate me for their ideological neutrality. It protects the freedom of local entities — left or right — from federal mandates. In today's America, where the federal government seeks to standardize immigration policies, this bulwark is precious. Even for people like me who support Ukraine and believe in a united West.

A partial victory with an amended complaint authorized

It is important not to over-interpret judge Olguin's ruling. It rejects the complaint as formulated. But it authorizes the administration to file an amended complaint — meaning the Trump DOJ can return with better-articulated arguments or targeting specific aspects of the Los Angeles ordinance it considers unconstitutional.

The legal battle between the Trump administration and sanctuary cities is therefore far from over. More rounds are coming, potentially up to the Supreme Court. And the current composition of the Court — six conservative justices against three progressive ones — does not guarantee that the anti-commandeering doctrine will be maintained in its full scope.

The remaining limitations on Los Angeles

Even without active cooperation from Los Angeles with ICE, the federal government retains all its immigration powers on the city's territory. ICE agents can operate in Los Angeles. They can make arrests in public places. They can work with their own federal resources. What they cannot do — and what the Los Angeles ordinance prevents — is use local police resources as a force multiplier.

That limitation is significant in practice: ICE has limited human resources. Without the cooperation of local law enforcement, its capacity to conduct large-scale operations in major metropolitan areas is considerably reduced. That is precisely why the Trump administration seeks by every means to compel this cooperation.

I will be honest: I am not naive about what sanctuary cities sometimes shelter. Some dangerous individuals have benefited from these protections. But the collateral damage of full cooperation — the destruction of trust between immigrant communities and the police — is far greater in the long run than the marginal security gains. And that calculation deserves to be stated clearly.

A test of American federalism in times of crisis

The battle between Trump and sanctuary cities is one of the most important tests of American federalism in decades. It pits two constitutional principles in tension: the primacy of federal law on immigration and the autonomy of local governments to define their own policies. How the courts resolve this tension will shape federal-local relations for generations.

For cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, or San Francisco, the ability to maintain their sanctuary policies is a deeply political identity question. These cities are built on diversity and inclusion. Their economies depend on the contribution of documented and undocumented immigrants. Renouncing their protective policies would be renouncing their very identity.

The credibility of the anti-commandeering doctrine

If the Supreme Court were one day to limit the anti-commandeering doctrine to compel city cooperation with ICE, it would create a precedent that future progressive administrations could use in turn — to force conservative states and cities to cooperate with federal mandates on subjects like voting rights, environmental protection, or gun regulation.

That symmetry is an additional reason why conservative judges committed to the structure of federalism should hesitate before weakening the anti-commandeering doctrine to satisfy the Trump administration's immigration policies. What one opens for one side can be turned against the other.

American federalism has this fascinating quality: it is always reclaimed alternately by progressives and conservatives depending on who holds federal power. When Trump invokes the Supremacy Clause to crush sanctuary cities, he forgets that the same doctrine could serve to impose progressive mandates on conservative states tomorrow. American constitutional history is full of such reversals.

A signal to other sanctuary cities

Judge Olguin's ruling sends a positive signal to the dozens of other cities and states that maintain policies similar to those of Los Angeles. It confirms that these policies have a solid constitutional foundation and can withstand federal administration prosecution — at least in their current form.

But this partial victory must not create false security. The Trump administration has clearly signaled it will not give up. It will amend its complaint, find new arguments, and continue judicial and political pressure on cities that refuse to cooperate. The fight continues.

The impact on the 2026 midterm elections

The American midterm elections of November 2026 are approaching, and the sanctuary city question is one of the topics that most powerfully mobilizes both electoral bases. Trump's supporters see sanctuary cities as an illustration of illegal resistance to federal law. His opponents see them as an example of democratic resistance to an overreaching executive.

Judge Olguin's ruling can be used by both sides: as a partial victory by sanctuary city supporters, and as an invitation to do better by the Trump administration. In the electoral context of 2026, this ambiguity will be weaponized by all parties.

I am weary of seeing judicial decisions immediately captured as electoral ammunition. A court ruling is not a sports score. It says something about the law, not about who wins politically. But in America of 2026, this distinction seems increasingly difficult to maintain.

A necessary victory for the local rule of law

Judge Olguin's ruling is a necessary victory for the idea that American cities have the right to define their own policies within the limits of the Constitution. It does not definitively settle the sanctuary city question. It does not end the pressure from the Trump administration. But it confirms that the fight is legitimate and can be won in the courts.

For Los Angeles, this ruling is also a political and symbolic victory: the largest city in California, one of the largest urban centers in the Western world, has successfully defended its right to protect its immigrant residents from arbitrary mass deportation. That is not nothing.

What I expect from the federal government

What I expect from the Trump administration in this file is precisely what judge Olguin has offered it: a better-articulated complaint, targeting specific and constitutionally problematic aspects of the Los Angeles ordinance, rather than a frontal attack on the very principle of sanctuary policies. If the government has legitimate grievances, let it articulate them rigorously before a court.

Democracy functions better when conflicts between levels of government are settled in courts rather than through raw political pressure. The ruling of June 23, 2026 is an invitation to that process. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will accept it in that spirit.

My simple conclusion: sanctuary cities have the right to exist. They are part of the fabric of American federalism. They protect vulnerable people who contribute to American society. And as long as the courts confirm their constitutionality, I will defend them — with the same conviction with which I defend Ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign nation.

Who lives in sanctuary cities and why they stay

The 9 million inhabitants of Los Angeles include a significant proportion of immigrants — documented and undocumented. These people work in agriculture, restaurants, construction, home care, and dozens of other sectors that make the California economy function. They pay local taxes, send their children to school, contribute to their neighborhoods. Treating them all as threats to be deported as quickly as possible ignores this real contribution.

Los Angeles's sanctuary policy is not built on indifference to the law. It is built on a pragmatic assessment: a city that forces its police to work with ICE becomes a city where immigrants do not call 911 when they are victims of a crime, where they do not bring their children to the emergency room for fear of their status, where they hide rather than integrate. That is good for no one.

Mixed families at the heart of the debate

The human face of this debate is that of mixed families — one parent an American citizen, the other undocumented. Thousands of such families live in Los Angeles. The sanctuary policy allows them to live without the constant terror of brutal family separation. Eliminating it would not serve "the rule of law" — it would destroy families for whom the United States is the only home they have ever known.

These families have been at the center of the most moving judicial battles of the Trump era. The rulings of judges who ordered family reunification, the emergency proceedings to prevent deportations, the contempt orders against ICE for ignoring injunctions — all of it constitutes a heartbreaking picture of the human cost of a mass deportation policy without nuance.

I think of those American children who grow up not knowing whether their parents will be there the next morning. No immigration policy, however legitimate in its principles, can ignore that human cost. The sovereignty argument is real. The humanity argument is too. And both deserve to be weighed together, not separately.

A national network of solidarity cities and states

Los Angeles's partial victory is being followed with interest by dozens of other cities and states that maintain similar policies. Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle — all these cities have sanctuary ordinances that potentially expose them to the same lawsuits filed against Los Angeles.

They are following these proceedings as an indicator of what awaits them. If Los Angeles ultimately wins definitively, their own policies will be consolidated. If it loses on appeal, they will have to revise theirs. The final ruling in this case will therefore have national reach far beyond the borders of California.

The support of local elected officials and organizations

The mayors and governors of the cities and states concerned have generally applauded judge Olguin's ruling. The National League of Cities and the US Conference of Mayors have both expressed support for Los Angeles's position, emphasizing that forced cooperation with ICE would erode trust between communities and their local law enforcement.

This public safety argument is perhaps the most powerful available to sanctuary policy advocates: research shows that immigrants — documented or not — are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with local police in jurisdictions where they fear that cooperation could lead to their deportation. Sanctuary policies therefore improve, from this perspective, public safety for all residents.

The public safety argument in favor of sanctuary cities is the one that should convince even the most skeptical conservatives. If immigrants do not talk to the police because they fear deportation, criminals — including violent gang members — can operate with impunity in their communities. Public safety is not a partisan concept. It draws on every available ally.

The meaning of judge Olguin's ruling for the future

The ruling of June 23, 2026 confirms that American cities have the constitutional right to define their own policies on cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It is a partial victory in a fight that is far from over. The amended complaint the Trump DOJ can file could reopen the debate from a different angle. Possible appeals could carry the case to the Supreme Court.

For Los Angeles and the other sanctuary cities, the lesson of this June 23, 2026 is clear: resistance is possible, and courts can be allies in that resistance. American democracy, for all its fractures, still maintains spaces where the law prevails over political pressure. Those spaces deserve to be fiercely defended.

My message to elected officials in sanctuary cities

To the mayors, city council members, and prosecutors who maintain sanctuary policies under pressure: hold firm. You are defending not only your residents, but also a fundamental principle of American federalism. You are defending the idea that local communities have the right to define their own values and priorities. That idea is precious. And it is worth the judicial battles it requires.

Judge Olguin's ruling vindicates you for now. Use this space to consolidate your policies, to make them as legally robust as possible, and to prepare for the next rounds of this fight. Democracy is not a final state. It is a permanent effort.

I close this editorial with a conviction that has not changed: sanctuary cities are legitimate expressions of American federalism, and their right to exist deserves to be defended. Judge Olguin's ruling confirms it. The long history of America confirms it too. And I will continue to defend it, editorial after editorial, for as long as courts have decisions to render.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.