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

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

Introduction: a victory for cities that say no to mass deportation

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.

The Trump administration's arguments against Los Angeles

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.

What the ruling does not say

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.

The stakes for federal-local relations

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.

What this ruling means for American politics

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.

The impact on community trust in the police

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.

The human cost of mass deportation policies

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.

The states and cities closely watching this case

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.

Conclusion: a battle won in a war that continues

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.

Columnist's transparency note

My position on sanctuary cities

I support the right of cities to define their own policies on cooperation with ICE, within constitutional limits. This bias is declared. I believe sanctuary policies protect vulnerable people and improve public safety for all residents. This position informs my analysis, even as I tried to fairly present the Trump administration's arguments.

Method and limits

This editorial is based on public sources: media coverage of the June 23, 2026 ruling, legal analyses of the anti-commandeering doctrine, and reports on the Trump administration's immigration policies. I do not have access to the full text of judge Olguin's ruling. Where my information is incomplete, I say so.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

Straits Times — US court dismisses Trump administration lawsuit over Los Angeles immigration policy — June 23, 2026

The Guardian — The court ruling on Trump's fast-track deportations — June 23, 2026

Washington Times — Courts and Trump's deportation powers — June 23, 2026

Secondary sources

AJC — Federal appeals court allows expanded speedy deportations — June 2026

Daily Record — Appeals court and Trump's fast-track deportations — June 23, 2026

Al Jazeera — US appeals court says Trump can proceed with fast-track deportation efforts — June 23, 2026