Office of Public Affairs | Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against State of New Mexico and City of Albuquerque for Obstructing Federal Immigration Enforcement

World


The United States has filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against the State of New Mexico, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, the City of Albuquerque, and Albuquerque Mayor Timothy Keller, alleging that the implementation of House Bill 9 (HB9), entitled the “Immigrant Safety Act,” and Albuquerque City Ordinance O-26-15, entitled the “Safer Community Places Ordinance (SCPO),” infringes on federal immigration enforcement authority.

Through HB9, the State of New Mexico is trying to abolish decades of long-standing, voluntary partnerships between local governments and federal authorities that are essential for enforcing immigration laws and keeping the federal immigration system running as Congress intended. Both HB9 and the SCPO seek to block federal agents from using any local government property to carry out their work. Additionally, by unlawfully requiring private businesses to tip off illegal aliens about immigration enforcement activities, the SCPO attempts to harbor and shield illegal aliens from detection by federal immigration authorities and poses an obstacle to the enforcement of federal immigration law.

“New Mexico is attempting to regulate immigration policy, something the federal government is clearly and uniquely empowered by the Constitution to do,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Our filings seek to halt the state’s unconstitutional actions by preserving cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement and allowing federal immigration officials to enforce the law.”

“The State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque seek to intentionally obstruct federal law enforcement by preventing cooperation between local governments and the federal government,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison for the District of New Mexico. “HB9 and the SCPO unlawfully interfere with federal immigration enforcement, illegally discriminate against federal operations, and violate constitutional protections regarding contracts and federal supremacy. Additionally, by barring public entities from participating in federal immigration detention in New Mexico, HB9 jeopardizes nearly 300 jobs and the economy of Otero County. Our lawsuit asks the court to declare these laws invalid and issue an immediate injunction to stop them from being enforced.”

Upon taking office, President Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border to address a security and public safety crisis caused by previous Open Border policies. On February 5, 2025, the Attorney General instructed the Department’s Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations. On August 5, 2025, the Attorney General published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, which included Albuquerque, and vowed to bring litigation to end these policies nationwide. Today’s lawsuit in New Mexico is the latest in a series of lawsuits targeting illegal sanctuary jurisdiction policies across the country.

Under President Trump’s mandate, the federal government is exercising its proper constitutional authority to remove criminal aliens from the United States. Central to this mission are long-standing, voluntary agreements between federal and local agencies that allow state and local officials to assist with the investigation, transportation, and detention of illegal aliens. The federal government relies heavily on these partnerships, which have operated successfully in New Mexico for decades, to fulfill its immigration enforcement duties and keep New Mexicans safe.

The case is United States v. State of New Mexico et al., No. 1:26-cv-01471 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.

The claims asserted by the United States are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *