A federal court in California has dismissed a legal challenge brought by the Trump administration against the City of Los Angeles over a municipal ordinance that limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin rejected the administration's contention that the ordinance was unconstitutional. At the same time, the judge allowed the federal government the opportunity to submit an amended complaint, leaving open the possibility of further litigation on the issue.
The administration's lawsuit, which was filed last June, had alleged that Los Angeles violated federal law when it adopted rules that bar city resources from being used to assist immigration enforcement or to collect information on individuals' citizenship status. The complaint followed a period in which federal troops were sent to Los Angeles amid protests tied to deportation operations.
In his ruling, Olguin declined to accept the argument that the city was impermissibly trying to regulate the federal government. Instead, he concluded that the ordinance "controls the actions of the City’s own agents and agencies," framing the measure as a directive to local personnel rather than a restriction on federal authorities.
Los Angeles city attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto issued a statement on Monday praising the decision. In her view, the ruling "reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision on Monday.
The lawsuit is one of several the Trump administration has pursued against jurisdictions led by Democratic officials that have adopted similar limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Federal judges previously dismissed comparable suits brought against Boston and Chicago.
By allowing an amended complaint, the court has left room for the administration to reframe its claims, but the current ruling underscores the judge's conclusion that the ordinance addresses municipal conduct rather than imposing requirements on federal agents. The outcome in this case joins other recent judicial decisions that have rejected administration challenges to local immigration-related policies.