The Trump Administration is asking a judge to order Rochester to stop enforcing its sanctuary city policy.
In its request for a summary judgment, the DOJ makes several arguments regarding the city’s policy and the Rochester Police Department’s training. Chief among them is that while the 10th Amendment does give the city discretion in what federal responsibilities it chooses to participate in, the city’s policy goes beyond not participating. Instead, the DOJ argues that it actively is meant to obstruct immigration enforcement.
“Rochester affirmatively prohibits information sharing,” the DOJ’s request reads. “Doing so is more than a mere declination to participate —it is an affirmative policy to obstruct and take an active stance against immigration enforcement. Rochester could, for example, remain silent on information sharing, leaving it to individuals to decide whether to contact DHS. But it did not.”
The case from the DOJ, which names Mayor Malik Evans and City Council President Miguel Meléndez as defendants, stems from a March 2025 traffic stop in which Rochester police assisted federal immigration enforcement in arresting three roofers from Guatemala. Those officers were briefly taken off the street for additional training.
In August, the city adopted a new sanctuary policy. It added protections for LGBTQ individuals and instilled disciplinary measures for city employees who aid federal immigration enforcement.
The original case was dismissed due to the policy targeted by the federal government now being mooted. A nearly identical complaint was refiled in December.
Patrick Beath, the city’s top attorney, said the federal government’s request is mostly a rehashing of legal arguments it has already made. But the timing of the request for summary judgment is unusual—typically; such a request is made following or during discovery and the court hearing arguments and facts. The Rochester case has not yet gotten to that point.
“You file a complaint that has a certain set of allegations that you contend are the facts, then there's no discovery that's done, and then you say, ‘Hey, Judge, look at those facts that I've given you, and tell me I'm right and grant me judgment just on those facts,’” Beath said. “That's not the way this works.”
The city of Rochester had earlier this year requested the case be dismissed due to the federal government’s failure to state a claim. The city’s position is that its policies are fully in line with federal law and that they do not obstruct the federal government from enforcing immigration law.
“The United States does not – because it cannot – point to any statute commanding the city’s participation with civil immigration enforcement,” the city’s filing reads. “The provisions of the (Immigration and Nationalization Act) identified by the United States regulate federal officials while the sanctuary city law and policies regulate city officials, consequently they cannot conflict.”
The federal government is seeking the court to rule the city’s law as invalid, and bar any employee from enforcing the policies.
Judge Frank Geraci has ordered the city to respond to the request for summary judgment by April 6. Beath said the city will be filing its response later this week. The federal government has until April 20 to reply.
