White House Sues Rochester Over Sanctuary City Policy (1)

Rochester, NY’s sanctuary city policy is illegal and violates the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, the Trump administration alleged in a federal lawsuit.

Federal efforts to address the “crisis of illegal immigration” are being “hindered by Sanctuary Cities such as the City of Rochester, who refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities,” says the lawsuit filed Thursday in the US District Court for the Western District of New York.

The suit comes amid President Donald Trump’s efforts to crack down on undocumented immigration, including taking action against sanctuary cities. A San Francisco federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s funding freeze for a group of local governments with sanctuary city policies.

Central to the lawsuit is a resolution passed by Rochester in February 2017 that affirmed its status as a sanctuary city. In March of that same year, the Rochester Police Department issued a general order prohibiting local cooperation with the federal immigration enforcement officials. The complaint says both the resolution and order “run directly afoul” of US law.

The government claims Rochester’s sanctuary city policies, first adopted in 1986, interfere with US Customs and Border Protection’s work enforcing the immigration laws at international ports of entry, including the Rochester International Airport. The complaint also notes that Rochester is less than 10 miles from Lake Ontario, which separates the US from Canada.

The complaint “is an exercise in political theater, not legal practice,” Rochester Mayor Malik Evans (D) and City Council President Miguel Meléndez said in a statement, noting that they have not yet been served. “On its face, the The City’s Sanctuary City policy is legally sound and always has been—including during the entirety of the Trump Administration’s first term,” they added.

The case is U.S. v. City of Rochester, W.D.N.Y., No. 6:25-cv-06226, complaint filed 4/24/25.