Justice department asks supreme court to dismiss

The Supreme Court dismissed three lawsuits over a Trump-era immigration policy. This policy led some areas to declare themselves “sanctuary cities.”
The policy was part of an effort to get police departments
to tell federal authorities when noncitizens were about to be released from custody.
In letters to the Supreme Court,
This indicates that the government will no longer seek to enforce the policy.
Immigrants in sanctuary cities can try to get H-2B Visas.

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed three pending petitions that challenged the Trump administration’s effort to withhold federal law-enforcement grants from jurisdictions that limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The Court’s dismissal followed the Justice Department’s request to remove the cases from the Court’s docket, leaving the lower-court outcomes and existing precedent in place. 

What the dismissal means in practice

• The dismissal resolved the immediate federal appellate route: the Supreme Court will not issue a new nationwide precedent on the funding-withholding policy at this time, and the litigation posture instead returns to the lower-court rulings that had blocked or constrained the policy. 
• For jurisdictions that successfully defended against the executive’s funding conditions, the dismissal preserves their victories and reduces the chance of a contrary Supreme Court ruling reversing those outcomes—at least as a consequence of these particular petitions. 

Why the parties sought dismissal

In this instance the Department of Justice (under the new administration) asked the Court to dismiss the cases, signaling a change in enforcement priorities and removing the immediate need for the Court to decide the constitutional questions presented by the prior administration’s policy. The request meant the high court was presented with a stipulation that the appeals should be closed rather than briefed and argued. 

Practical implications for practitioners & local governments

• Policy stability is still limited. The dismissal does not remove the underlying legal issues from future litigation; similar conflicts can resurface if federal officials reintroduce comparable conditional-funding schemes or if new factual scenarios arise. Counsel should therefore continue to preserve records, administrative filings, and trial-court rulings. 
• Local rules and cooperation policies remain defensible. Cities and counties that won in district court or on appeal keep those protections in effect unless a separate legal challenge succeeds. Municipalities should keep policy documents current and maintain clear records of their procedures. 

Practical next steps (for clients and local governments)

1. Preserve relevant records: grant-application files, intergovernmental agreements, policy texts, and communications with federal agencies.
2. Continue to monitor agency guidance — the executive branch’s enforcement priorities can change quickly, and new guidance may prompt fresh litigation.
3. Coordinate with counsel to maintain defensible local policies and, if necessary, prepare to defend those policies in district court.

How we help

We draft local policy reviews, preserve administrative records, prepare rapid-response litigation packets, and advise on intergovernmental agreements to reduce legal risk. If you want a one-page client alert or a municipal-policy checklist (ready to paste on your site or distribute to staff), say “Client alert” and I’ll produce it in plain text or PDF.