TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill is defending her administration’s restrictions on federal immigration enforcement after a federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking to overturn them, saying the ruling validates the state’s decision to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from using certain state-controlled spaces for civil immigration operations.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Justice Department’s challenge to Executive Order No. 12 on September 4. U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner concluded that federal prosecutors had not plausibly alleged that the order discriminates against the federal government in violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, according to the ruling as reported by Gothamist.

Sherrill responded with one of her administration’s strongest statements yet on the dispute. “ICE is not making New Jersey’s communities any safer,” she said. She said the restrictions were intended to protect residents and state facilities and added: “Once again, Trump tried to stop us, and once again we won.”

The ruling concerns an executive order Sherrill signed on February 11 as part of a broader state response to expanded federal immigration enforcement. Executive Order No. 12 directs New Jersey executive-branch departments and agencies not to permit federal immigration officers to enter, access or use nonpublic areas of state property for civil immigration enforcement unless they have a valid judicial warrant, judicial order or qualify for one of the order’s stated exceptions.

The policy also bars state agencies from allowing their property to be used as a staging area, processing location or operational base for federal civil immigration enforcement. Its definition of state property covers facilities, premises and parcels owned, operated, leased or controlled by New Jersey executive-branch agencies, including government offices, parking lots and parking garages.

The order does not prohibit federal immigration officers from entering areas that are open to the public on the same terms as other members of the public. It also allows state agencies to comply with valid judicial warrants and court orders, participate in qualifying joint law-enforcement task forces whose primary purpose is not civil immigration enforcement, and cooperate with federal authorities when required by applicable law.

Those distinctions were central to New Jersey’s defense of the policy. State officials have argued that the order regulates the use of state property rather than attempting to prevent the federal government from enforcing immigration law throughout New Jersey. The administration has framed the measure as an exercise of the state’s authority over its own facilities and workforce.

The Justice Department took the opposite position when it sued the state and Sherrill in February. Federal officials argued that the executive order interfered with enforcement of federal immigration laws and improperly treated immigration officers differently because of their federal duties. The department said the restrictions could prevent ICE and other federal officers from carrying out secure arrests inside nonpublic areas of state facilities, including correctional facilities.

In announcing the lawsuit on February 24, the Justice Department said New Jersey’s policies obstructed federal enforcement and increased the risk that people sought by immigration authorities could be released rather than transferred in controlled settings. The department also argued that states cannot adopt policies that discriminate against or substantially interfere with lawful federal operations.

Castner’s dismissal represents a setback for that argument at the district-court level. According to Gothamist, the judge found that the government had failed to plausibly allege the discrimination required for its Supremacy Clause theory. The decision does not resolve the wider national debate over immigration enforcement, but it means the federal government did not establish a viable basis for invalidating this New Jersey order through the claims presented in the lawsuit.

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport also welcomed the decision, saying the state had maintained from the beginning that the executive order was lawful. Her office said the ruling supported the administration’s effort to protect state workers and residents while maintaining boundaries between state operations and federal civil immigration enforcement.

The Justice Department had not immediately responded to Gothamist’s request for comment following the dismissal. The federal government could still consider further legal steps, including appellate review, depending on the terms of the judgment and the administration’s assessment of the case. For the moment, however, Executive Order No. 12 remains in effect.

The litigation highlights a recurring constitutional tension in U.S. immigration policy. Immigration enforcement is principally a federal responsibility, but federal agencies frequently interact with state and local governments when making arrests, obtaining information, transferring detainees or operating on property controlled by other levels of government. Disagreements arise when states decline to provide assistance that federal authorities consider operationally important.

New Jersey’s order seeks to draw that line at the use of state-controlled property. It does not purport to prevent ICE from operating elsewhere in the state, nor does it block officers carrying judicial warrants from accessing covered facilities. Instead, it limits when executive-branch agencies may voluntarily make nonpublic state property available to federal officers conducting civil immigration enforcement.

Sherrill’s administration has described that distinction as necessary to preserve public confidence in state institutions, particularly facilities serving residents who could avoid government services if they fear encountering immigration officers. The text of Executive Order No. 12 says use of certain state properties for immigration enforcement could discourage people from seeking essential services or accompanying relatives and caregivers to those facilities.

Federal officials have emphasized a different public-safety concern. In its February lawsuit announcement, the Justice Department argued that restrictions on cooperation can complicate arrests of people already in government custody, forcing federal officers to conduct enforcement operations in less controlled settings. That position remains a central part of the administration’s broader campaign against state and local policies limiting cooperation with ICE.

The court’s ruling therefore leaves intact two sharply different approaches to public safety. New Jersey says limiting ICE’s use of state property protects residents, maintains trust in public institutions and prevents state resources from being used for federal civil enforcement without appropriate legal authorization. The federal government has argued that such restrictions obstruct immigration enforcement and reduce officers’ ability to make arrests in secure environments.

For New Jersey residents and state agencies, the immediate consequence is more concrete: the restrictions adopted in February continue to govern access to nonpublic executive-branch property. Agencies remain directed to require the forms of judicial authorization specified in the order, subject to its exceptions, before allowing covered federal immigration activity in those spaces.

Sherrill indicated that the state does not intend to retreat from the policy after the court victory. She said protecting New Jersey residents remains her top priority and pledged to continue pursuing what her administration describes as safe communities for everyone in the state. With federal immigration enforcement remaining a major national policy priority, the New Jersey case is likely to remain part of the larger legal struggle over how much assistance Washington can expect from states that oppose aspects of its enforcement strategy.