A recently re-filed federal lawsuit challenging Rochester's sanctuary policy largely mirrors the language of the original litigation that a judge tossed last month, and in the eyes of the city’s top attorney, is destined to meet the same fate.
The city plans to file its response next month. But a quick resolution to the case is unlikely. Instead, Corporation Counsel Patrick Beath said he is preparing for a protracted court battle that could consume much of 2026.
“Timelines in the federal court are such that motions will take between three to 12 months to get decided, depending on a number of factors,” Beath said. “So, if our motion is granted in its entirety, that will end the case. I would say we're looking at potentially a year at best, if our motion is not granted, and we go into discovery, then discovery can go on for quite a while.”
The DOJ had filed a complaint against the city, Mayor Malik Evans, and City Council President Miguel Melendez in April. That followed a high-profile incident in March in which 10 officers with the Rochester Police Department aided federal immigration enforcement in arresting three roofers from Guatemala.
Judge Frank Geraci dismissed that complaint in November. The dismissal was largely due to the fact that the 2017 sanctuary city policy being challenged no longer existed. City Council approved an updated resolution in August. Geraci had urged the federal government to more clearly lay out what exactly it was requesting from the court should the case be re-filed.
In his decision, Geraci noted the political firestorm surrounding sanctuary cities, and noted that it was unclear what exactly the DOJ took issue with in Rochester’s policy, as well as what it wanted the court to do.
The DOJ had until last Friday to file its amended complaint. It did so that evening.
Little is changed between the original complaint and the amended one. Nine paragraphs have been added, noting Rochester’s updated sanctuary policy and changes to Police Department general orders. The remaining 72 paragraphs are mostly identical to the original.
Patrick Beath, the city’s top lawyer, said the closest thing the federal government has provided to a layout of what it’s challenging is an exhibit attached to the amended complaint. That exhibit is a chart summarizing the additional paragraphs.
The DOJ’s argument hinges on the Supremacy Clause of the U. S. Constitution, which states that federal law is the top law of the country. However, the city has argued the Tenth Amendment allows the city to set its own laws and procedures around policies that are solely federal responsibilities, like immigration enforcement.
“I think the breadth of some of the language that they have included in that chart makes it unclear exactly what they think should be enjoined,” Beath said. “Or they just have this hugely overbroad sense of the interaction between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. And that's been our main argument all along, that all of this is an exercise in federal commandeering.”
Rochester’s sanctuary policy does not prevent immigration enforcement from happening in the city, nor does it attempt to actively obstruct it. Rather, it sets out a policy of not engaging with or actively supporting immigration enforcement, particularly in civil proceedings.
For example, the general order for the Rochester Police Department notes that police won’t assist federal immigration agents in apprehending a person based on a civil immigration detainer. But a police officer can turn over or assist with arresting a person with a judicial or criminal arrest warrant. The latest general order was put into effect in September, following the adoption of the city’s new sanctuary policy the previous month.
Beath said that the complaint is effectively demanding that Rochester police go beyond their job of criminal law enforcement.
“I think that the March 2025 incident is an example of exactly what the federal government would like to see happen, which is that local governments engage in civil law enforcement for them,” Beath said. “...Our general orders and our policies say civil immigration enforcement is a federal thing, and we're not going to get involved in that. But if there is criminal law enforcement going on that touches on folks and their immigration status, we're still going to cooperate on criminal law enforcement matters.”
The city has until Jan. 2 to file its response to the amended complaint. It has requested an extension until Jan. 30.
Mayor Malik Evans, in a statement, said the city would continue to stand by its sanctuary policy.
“The city of Rochester continues to contend that the complaint is an exercise in political theater, not legal practice. Rochester has been a sanctuary city since 1986, including during the entirety of the Trump Administration’s first term,” the statement reads. “The city fully intends to defend the legality of its policies, and to use this opportunity to hold the federal government to task and ensure that it does not ever again commandeer local resources in violation of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.”
Meanwhile, Rochester is currently among about 50 cities and counties suing the federal government over its plan to withhold resources from sanctuary cities. That case is led by San Francisco. Hal Kieburtz, another attorney for the city, said it is expecting a decision on an injunction soon, but that case is otherwise ongoing.
