A federal judge has dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Washtenaw County, Michigan, over county policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, delivering a legal setback to the federal government’s effort to compel greater local participation in ICE operations.

U.S. District Judge F. Kay Behm of the Eastern District of Michigan granted Washtenaw County’s motion to dismiss the case, concluding that federal officials had not shown that the county violated constitutional limits by adopting its own immigration-related policies. The ruling dismissed the lawsuit in full, according to county officials and local reporting on the decision.

The lawsuit was filed by the Department of Justice in April and targeted Washtenaw County officials, including the county sheriff, prosecutor, and Board of Commissioners. Federal officials argued that county policies obstructed immigration enforcement efforts and improperly restricted federal authorities’ ability to carry out immigration responsibilities.

At issue were several county policies involving cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The county had adopted measures limiting certain interactions between local agencies and ICE, including restrictions involving immigration detainers and access to county facilities. Federal officials argued that these policies conflicted with federal immigration authority and interfered with national enforcement priorities.

Judge Behm’s decision focused on the constitutional relationship between federal and local governments. In the opinion, the court determined that while immigration enforcement is largely a federal responsibility, federal authorities could not require local governments to use their own resources to carry out federal priorities in the manner requested.

The ruling cited principles associated with the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to states and local governments. The court found that Washtenaw County had exercised its authority to establish local policies rather than unlawfully obstruct federal enforcement.

The decision reflects a recurring legal question across the United States: whether local governments must actively assist federal immigration enforcement efforts or whether they may choose the extent of their cooperation. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have considered similar disputes involving immigration detainers, information sharing, and access to local facilities.

Washtenaw County officials welcomed the dismissal, saying the ruling affirmed the county’s ability to determine how it allocates local resources while maintaining public safety responsibilities. County leaders have argued that immigration enforcement remains a federal function and that local agencies should focus on community-level priorities.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit had argued that local restrictions could undermine federal immigration enforcement. Federal officials maintained that immigration laws established by Congress should take priority over conflicting local policies and that county actions created barriers for federal agents.

The court’s dismissal does not eliminate the broader policy conflict between federal immigration authorities and local governments with differing approaches to enforcement cooperation. Immigration remains one of the most politically contested issues in U.S. public policy, with disagreements often centering on federal authority, public safety, and local autonomy.

Legal experts tracking immigration enforcement disputes have noted that cases like Washtenaw County’s could influence future litigation involving so-called sanctuary policies and federal efforts to increase cooperation from state and local agencies.

The ruling also comes as federal and local officials continue to debate the practical responsibilities of immigration enforcement. While federal agencies maintain primary authority over immigration matters, local governments across the country have adopted varying policies based on their interpretations of public safety needs, resource limitations, and community relationships.

For Washtenaw County, the dismissal allows existing policies to remain in place unless overturned through future legal action or policy changes. The county includes Ann Arbor and surrounding communities and has previously faced political disputes over its approach to immigration-related issues.

The Department of Justice has not announced whether it will appeal the decision. An appeal would move the dispute to a higher federal court and could potentially create another review of the constitutional questions surrounding local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The case is part of a larger national legal landscape in which federal courts are increasingly being asked to define the limits of executive authority over state and local governments. Future decisions in similar cases could shape how immigration enforcement partnerships operate across the United States.

For communities, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers, the Washtenaw County ruling highlights the continuing tension between national immigration priorities and local control. The outcome may influence future negotiations between federal officials and municipalities as both sides seek clarity over their respective roles.