该裁决此前已有多起类似诉讼被驳回，涉及波士顿、洛杉矶和明尼苏达州等多地城市
作者：伊莱恩·马伦 福克斯新闻
发布时间：2026年10月17日 美国东部时间凌晨5:00
拜登任命的一名法官周四再次给特朗普政府带来法律重击，驳回了其试图推翻纽约市庇护政策的诉讼，法官裁定司法部的论点相当于“绕过第十修正案的后门”。
特朗普政府于2025年7月起诉纽约市，指控该市的庇护法通过限制地方执法部门与联邦当局的合作，非法阻碍联邦移民执法。
纽约市案件是特朗普政府针对州和地方辖区提起的二十多起诉讼之一，这些诉讼均围绕庇护政策及相关限制与联邦移民当局合作的政策展开。
但美国地区法官小拉蒙·E·雷耶斯裁定，联邦政府无权质疑纽约市对 honoring ICE拘留令的限制，并驳回了司法部关于该市庇护政策违反联邦法律优先原则的主张。
曼达尼抨击联邦政府针对纽约市移民发动“暴力与恐怖运动”
2026年3月19日，纽约市市长佐赫兰·曼达尼在纽约市中东教堂的新闻发布会上发言。（莱昂纳多·穆尼奥斯 法新社/盖蒂图片社）
纽约市市长佐赫兰·曼达尼在周五的X平台帖子中对这一裁决表示欢迎，指责政府试图将城市雇员转变为移民执法人员。
“联邦政府试图将我们的公职人员转变为遣返特工，迫使纽约市执行ICE的残忍议程。今天，一家联邦法院驳回了这一企图，维护了我们的法律。每个纽约人都有权在不担心因驱逐被盯上的情况下向城市寻求帮助。我们将站在移民邻居一边，捍卫我们的法律，保护这座城市属于我们所有人的承诺。”曼达尼写道。
雷耶斯认为，联邦政府缺乏诉讼资格，因为推翻该市的限制措施无法弥补其所谓的损害，因为限制合作的其他州法律仍然有效。
但前联邦检察官、现任霍茨曼·沃格尔律师事务所合伙人阿比谢克·坎布利对这一推理提出质疑，他认为无论是否存在类似的州级限制，该市的法律都独立损害了联邦政府的权威。
“仅仅因为纽约市将相关法律写入法典，就造成了主权损害，无论其他因素是否会阻碍美国相关主张的实际执行，”坎布利告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
联邦法官叫停纽约禁止ICE特工戴口罩的法律
雷耶斯同时驳回了司法部的论点，即纽约市的庇护政策被联邦移民法取代。
“即便美国拥有诉讼资格——但它并没有——其优先管辖权主张也不成立，”雷耶斯写道。“美国所有的优先管辖权主张——明示优先权、冲突优先权和领域优先权——均不成立，因为相关联邦法规并未规制私人行为体。”
记录显示：尽管有ICE拘留令，数百名被监禁的非法移民仍被释放到蓝州街头
2026年6月26日，美国移民及海关执法局（ICE）特工在纽约联邦广场法院内将数十名移民拘留，此前他们刚完成法律程序。这些逮捕行动在法庭庭审后不久进行，引发了移民权利倡导者的批评，他们称法庭内的执法破坏了正当程序，并阻止社区成员寻求法律保护。（洛克曼·武拉尔·利博尔 阿纳多卢通讯社/盖蒂图片社）
法官援引了第十修正案的反征用原则，该原则禁止联邦政府强迫州和地方政府动用其官员和资源执行联邦项目。
“如果各州无法自由控制其机构和雇员以抵制联邦移民执法——这属于各州的宪法特权——那么第十修正案的反征用原则就毫无意义，”雷耶斯写道。
但坎布利认为，雷耶斯误解了强迫地方政府协助联邦移民执法与阻止其积极阻挠之间的区别。
“第十修正案反征用原则的真正含义是，你不能强迫各州从无所作为转向主动协助。而这些法规的本质是阻止各州积极阻挠联邦移民执法，”坎布利说。
他辩称，司法部并非寻求迫使纽约市官员执行联邦移民执法，而是旨在阻止地方法律干预联邦当局执行移民法的能力。
“这与联邦政府要求州或城市主动协助ICE行动截然不同，”坎布利说。
唐纳德·特朗普总统2026年10月13日在阿拉斯加州瓦西拉的柯蒂斯·D·梅纳德纪念体育中心的竞选集会上发表讲话。（肯特·西村 法新社/盖蒂图片社）
司法部还辩称，纽约市的庇护政策不仅仅是拒绝协助联邦当局，还限制了根据联邦法律应与ICE共享的信息。政府还声称，该市不公平地专门针对联邦移民官员实施了不适用于其他执法机构的限制。
但雷耶斯发现，联邦信息共享保护措施专门适用于有关个人公民身份或移民身份的信息，并不要求地方政府向ICE提供更广泛的细节，例如某人的释放日期或下落。
“美国声称释放日期和羁押状态信息属于移民或公民身份相关信息，这与法律相悖，”雷耶斯写道。
不过坎布利认为，关于何种信息被扣留的争论忽略了更核心的问题。
“问题主要在于，任何禁止合作的州或地方政府是否都被联邦法律优先管辖，无论涉及的信息是什么，”坎布利说。
这一裁决是特朗普政府在联邦法院挑战庇护政策的最新挫折，此前涉及波士顿、洛杉矶和明尼苏达州的类似诉讼均被驳回。
伊莱恩·马伦是福克斯新闻数字频道和福克斯商业频道的撰稿人，报道全国政治新闻。
Biden-appointed judge deals Trump another sanctuary city defeat in major immigration fight
The ruling follows dismissals of similar lawsuits involving Boston, Los Angeles and Minnesota, among other cities
By Elaine Mallon, Fox News
Published October 17, 2026 5:00am EDT
A Biden-appointed judge dealt the Trump administration another legal blow Thursday, tossing its lawsuit seeking to upend New York City’s sanctuary policies after ruling that the Justice Department’s arguments amounted to a “backdoor around the Tenth Amendment.”
The Trump administration sued New York City in July 2025, alleging that its sanctuary laws unlawfully hinder federal immigration enforcement by restricting local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal authorities.
The New York City case is one of more than two dozen lawsuits the Trump administration has filed against state and local jurisdictions over sanctuary and related policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
But U.S. District Judge Ramón E. Reyes Jr. ruled that the federal government lacked standing to challenge New York City’s restrictions on honoring ICE detainers and rejected the Justice Department’s claims that the city’s sanctuary policies are preempted by federal law.
MAMDANI BLASTS FEDS FOR WAGING ‘CAMPAIGN OF VIOLENCE AND TERROR’ AGAINST NYC’S IMMIGRANTS
Mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani speaks during a press conference at Middle Collegiate Church in New York City on March 19, 2026.(Leonardo Munoz/AFP via Getty Images)
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani celebrated the ruling in a Friday post on X, accusing the administration of attempting to turn city employees into immigration enforcement agents.
“The federal government tried to turn our public servants into deportation agents and force New York City to carry out ICE’s cruel agenda. Today, a federal court rejected that effort and upheld our laws. Every New Yorker deserves to seek help from their city without fear of being targeted for deportation. We will stand by our immigrant neighbors, defend our laws and protect the promise that this city belongs to all of us,” Mamdani wrote.
Reyes found the administration lacked standing because striking down the city’s restrictions would not remedy its alleged harm because separate state laws restricting cooperation would remain in place.
But Abhishek Kambli, a former federal prosecutor and current partner at Holtzman Vogel, disputed that reasoning, arguing that the city’s laws independently harm the federal government’s authority regardless of whether similar state restrictions exist.
“The sovereign harm is done just by the fact that New York City has the law in the books, no matter what other factors prevent practical application of the United States’s position,” Kambli told Fox News Digital.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS NEW YORK LAW BANNING ICE AGENTS FROM WEARING MASKS
Reyes also rejected the Justice Department’s argument that New York City’s sanctuary policies are overridden by federal immigration law.
“Even if the United States has standing — and it does not — its preemption claims fail,” Reyes wrote. “All of the United States’ preemption claims — express, conflict and field — fail because the relevant federal statutes do not regulate private actors.”
Dozens of immigrants are detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents inside the Federal Plaza courthouse in New York City on Thursday, June 26, following their legal proceedings. The arrests, which took place shortly after court appearances, have sparked criticism from immigrant rights advocates, who say courthouse enforcement undermines due process and deters community members from seeking legal protection.(Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images)
The judge pointed to the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government from forcing state and local governments to use their own officials and resources to administer federal programs.
“If states cannot remain free to control their agencies and employees to resist federal immigration enforcement, which is within states’ constitutional prerogatives, the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine means nothing,” Reyes wrote.
Kambli, however, argued that Reyes misinterpreted the distinction between forcing local governments to assist federal immigration enforcement and preventing them from actively obstructing it.
“Really what the 10th Amendment anti-commandeering means is you can’t force states to go from doing nothing to affirmatively assisting. What these statutes are doing is basically preventing states from actively obstructing federal immigration enforcement,” Kambli said.
He argued that the Justice Department was not seeking to force New York City officials to carry out federal immigration enforcement, but instead to prevent local laws from interfering with federal authorities’ ability to enforce immigration law.
“That’s different from the federal government saying a state or a city is required to actively assist ICE in operations,” Kambli said.
President Donald Trump arrives to speak during a campaign rally at Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center in Wasilla, Alaska, on Oct. 13, 2026.(Kent NISHIMURA / AFP via Getty Images)
HUNDREDS OF JAILED ILLEGAL ALIENS RELEASED BACK ONTO BLUE-STATE STREETS DESPITE ICE DETAINERS, RECORDS SHOW
The Justice Department also argued that New York City’s sanctuary policies went beyond simply refusing to assist federal authorities by restricting information-sharing with ICE that is protected under federal law. The administration additionally claimed that the city unfairly singled out federal immigration officials for restrictions that did not apply to other law enforcement agencies.
Reyes, however, found that federal information-sharing protections apply specifically to information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status and do not require local governments to provide ICE with broader details, such as a person’s release date or whereabouts.
“The United States’ assertion that information regarding release dates and custody status is information regarding immigration or citizenship status is contrary to law,” Reyes wrote.
Kambli, however, argued that the distinction over what information is being withheld misses the greater issue at hand.
“The issue is mainly whether any state or locality that prohibits cooperation is preempted by federal law, regardless of what the information is,” Kambli said.
The ruling marks the latest setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to challenge sanctuary policies in federal court, following dismissals of similar lawsuits involving Boston, Los Angeles and Minnesota.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.
发表回复