On May 9, in a surprise move, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) filed a 53-page lawsuit in the United District Court for the District of New Mexico in Albuquerque. The complaint was filed by Ryan Ellison, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. Ellison had been appointed United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by former Attorney General Pam Bondi, but he forced to step down because he was never confirmed by the United States Senate.
The complaint names as Defendants New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller and the City of Albuquerque. The lawsuit comes after President Trump declared a national emergency regarding the southern border in January 2025. President Trump cited the urgent need to address the security and public safety crisis attributed to the country’s open border policies.
The civil complaint challenges New Mexico legislatures enacted House Bill 9, known as the “Immigrant Safety Act,” and Albuquerque ordinance O-26-15, known as the city’s “Safer Community Places Ordinance.” The Justice Department said both measures block federal agents from using local government property for immigration work. The USDOJ is asking for an injunction to immediately stop both HB9 and the Safer Community Places Ordinance from being enforced. The Immigrant Safety Act is supposed to take effect May 20, but the USDOJ is seeking an injunction and is asking for a hearing in 10 days but a date for a hearing has yet to been set.
The federal DOJ argues the state’s Immigrant Safety Act, which aims to stop ICE detention facilities in New Mexico, is an attempt to disrupt decades of voluntary partnerships between local and federal authorities. The lawsuit also alleges the City of Albuquerque’s “Safer Community Places Ordinance” makes the same infringements.
The United States Department of Justice is asking a federal judge in New Mexico to declare that both the state law and city ordinance are preempted by federal law and are unconstitutional and invalid. The U.S. Department of Justice is asking a federal judge to invalidate the newly enacted protections limiting immigration enforcement and detention in the state relating to Trump Administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said this of the federal lawsuit:
“New Mexico is attempting to regulate immigration policy, something the federal government is clearly and uniquely empowered by the Constitution to do. … Our filings seek to halt the state’s unconstitutional actions by preserving cooperation between federal, state and local law enforcement and allowing federal immigration officials to enforce the law.”
First Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Mexico Ryan Ellison said that both local and state governments have worked to disrupt federal immigration enforcement. Ellison issued the following statement:
“The State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque seek to intentionally obstruct federal law enforcement by preventing cooperation between local governments and the federal government. … [The Immigrant Safety Act] HB9 and the SCPO[Safer Community Places Ordinance] unlawfully interfere with federal immigration enforcement, illegally discriminate against federal operations, and violate constitutional protections regarding contracts and federal supremacy. Additionally, by barring public entities from participating in federal immigration detention in New Mexico, HB9 jeopardizes nearly 300 jobs and the economy of Otero County. Our lawsuit asks the court to declare these laws invalid and issue an immediate injunction to stop them from being enforced.”
NEW MEXICO HOUSE BILL HB 9 CHALLENGED
During the 2025 New Mexico legislature, House Bill 9 (HB9) known as the Immigrant Safety Act, was enacted into law that will prevent local government entities from entering into, renewing or extending contracts to detain individuals for federal immigration violations. The federal DOJ is seeking an immediate court order to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to continue jailing individuals in New Mexico detention facilities after a new state law called the Immigrant Safety Act goes into effect May 20.
The new law will likely force the Otero County processing center in southern New Mexico, which houses up to 1,096 men and women and employs about 284 people, to close. The facility has been housing ICE detainees since 2008. The lawsuit alleges that if Otero County is forced to cancel its contract with ICE, the Department of Homeland Security “will be forced to transfer many detainees hundreds of miles away to other states, such as the Fort Bliss facility” in El Paso, Texas. Meanwhile, Otero County would lose significant revenue and jobs.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY USDOJ
The Department of Justic DOJ contends in its lawsuit that disagreements over policy are not a legitimate reason to cancel current detention facility contracts in New Mexico and ban all future contractual agreements allowing ICE to detain individuals facing immigration violations. The lawsuit alleges in part:
“The sole purpose of HB9 is to express discontent with the federal immigration policies of the current administration. ”
The United States Department of Justice says the New Mexico law violates the contract clause of the United States Constitution by banning state and local governments from entering new contracts or renewing current ones with the federal government to detain people for civil immigration violations. Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution prohibits states from passing laws that impair contract obligations. Although the clause recognizes people’s right to form contracts, it allows the government to create laws barring contracts offending public policy.
Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, said this:
“What the federal government is arguing is that it’s not constitutional under the federal Constitution for … one fundamental reason, but it impairs something known as the contract clause. I don’t believe that their case law, meaning the federal government’s case law, and their arguments, are on point with past practice. But I do believe they have a shot at winning in this case, and reason for that is immigration is seen as a federal imperative in the courts.”
NEW MEXICO OFFICIALS RESPOND
Leah March, Deputy Director of Commutations for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said this about the lawsuit in a statement:
“We have not been served with the lawsuit, so we can’t comment on it, but we are confident in the constitutionality of HB9.”
After the law was enacted in 2025 by the New Mexico Legislature, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the Immigrant Safety Act would be defended by his office as a constitutional exercise. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez issued the following statement defending the new state law:
“House Bill 9 is a constitutional exercise of state authority, and this office will defend it.
The New Mexico Legislature passed this law after extensive consideration of documented harms occurring in immigration detention facilities operating in this state — inadequate medical care, deaths in custody, and conditions that fell well below acceptable standards. The Legislature made a considered judgment that New Mexico’s government, its employees, and its publicly funded facilities should not be instruments of a detention system that has caused serious and preventable harm to people held within our borders. That is precisely the kind of policy judgment that belongs to the states.
The Constitution reserves to the states the power to govern their own affairs — including how state and local personnel are deployed and how publicly funded facilities are used. Federal agents remain free to enforce federal immigration law. They may make arrests, conduct investigations, and carry out removals. What they may not do is compel New Mexico’s officers, employees, and institutions to administer federal enforcement priorities the state has chosen not to adopt. The federal government has its own personnel and its own resources. It does not have a constitutional right to New Mexico’s.
This lawsuit asks a federal court to override a democratically enacted state law because the administration disagrees with the policy choice the Legislature made. That is not a constitutional argument. It is an attempt to use federal litigation to reverse an outcome the administration dislikes. We will see them in court.”
ALBUQUERQUE’S “SAFER COMMUNITY PLACES” ORDINANCE
The federal DOJ lawsuit contends that Albuquerque’s new Safer Community Places Ordinance goes even further to infringe on federal immigration enforcement authority.
On March 16, the Albuquerque City Council enacted the Safer Community Places Ordinance strictly along political party lines. Voting “YES” were moderate Democrat City Council President Klarissa Pena and Progressive Democrats City Councilors Joaquín Baca, Nichole Rogers, Tammy Feibelkorn, Stephanie Telles. Voting “NO” were MAGA Republican City Council Vice President Dan Champine and MAGA Republican City Councilors Brook Bassan, Renée Grout and Dan Lewis. On May 7, progressive democrat Mayor Tim Keller signed into law the Safer Community Spaces Ordinance.
The Safer Community Spaces Ordinance limits federal immigration enforcement in schools, hospitals, churches, shelters and city-owned facilities. Construction zones and courthouses are also off-limits to ICE without warrants, under the measure. The ordinance reestablishes a Biden-era policy that banned ICE from making arrests at certain locations like schools, courthouses or houses of worship. The city’s policy does not impede federal law enforcement from entering these locations if they have a judicial warrant or if there is an “imminent threat to bodily harm.”
Albuquerque’s Safer Community Spaces Ordinance policy requires businesses to inform staff if their employment paperwork, such as I-9 work authorization forms, is audited. Business owners must also warn employees if they are notified that an immigration enforcement agent will be present on-site. The lawsuit alleges the Albuquerque ordinance “unlawfully requires private businesses to provide tips for those federal agents are seeking regarding immigration enforcement.”
Businesses applying for a license in Albuquerque must clearly mark the public and private areas of their businesses with signage to discourage ICE agents from entering break rooms or employee areas without warrants.
The ordinance also forbids ICE from using city property, including parking lots and parks, as staging areas for operations.
ABQ CITY OFFICIALS REACT
Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller said this about the federal DOJ lawsuit:
“This [lawsuit] really does not constitute a serious legal threat to Albuquerque. We’ve been down this road before, legally and from a policy perspective, and so we’re totally ready and willing and able to defend this lawsuit. … We’re not saying ICE can’t exist in Albuquerque. That would be illegal, even if we want to do that like that would be illegal. We’re just saying they can’t use city property that is legal. … It has to be very clear where you need a warrant, where you don’t for anyone, by the way, not just ICE. And so all our law does is it just requires posting of existing law around private property.”
“I will always stand up for the safety, rights, and dignity of Albuquerque residents. Our policies ensure ALL families can call 911, send their kids to school, and access City services without fear, while making clear that City resources are not tools for federal immigration raids. We are ready to defend our community, our values, and our public safety in court.”
MAGA Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis, who voted “NO” and opposed city’s Safer Community Places Ordinance said this in a statement about the DOJ lawsuit filed:
“Mayor Tim Keller deserves to be sued. … Immigrant sanctuary policies are dangerous, undermine cooperation between law enforcement agencies and put everyone at risk. … Sanctuary laws don’t protect! They create more victims. … It’s nothing more than obstruction of law enforcement and this mayor chose his radical ideology over public safety. … Most people in our City agree that there is a public safety benefit when local, state and federal law enforcement work together to enforce the law and protect innocent people.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: MAGA Republican City Councilor Dan Lewis just had to shoot his big mouth off as he reveals his nastiness and contempt for Mayor Keller as he relishes that Keller and the city have been sued by the Trump Administration alleging Albuquerque is a “sanctuary city”. Lewis knows better. Lewis knows Albuquerque is not nor has it ever been a sanctuary city. It was in 2001, long before Keller became Mayor in 2017 after beating MAGA Dan Lewis in a runoff landslide, that the city council declared the city to be an “Immigrant-Friendly City” by the City Council. The ordinance was sponsored by former Republican City Councilor Hess Yntema who represented the International District that has the largest immigrant population in the city. The ordinance declares the City of Albuquerque to be an “Immigrant-Friendly City.” It establishes City Of Albuquerque policies regarding immigrants and their families, regardless of immigration status and establishes city immigrant resource programs. An “Immigrant Friendly” City enacts policies that are favorable to undocumented people to allow for city services to them and its local law enforcement personnel do not make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws and only make arrests of undocumented people for violations of local ordinances and state laws, not federal laws.
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS
The federal lawsuit filed in New Mexico is identical to several others filed over the past year in states and cities with sanctuary policies. A federal judge in late March dismissed the U.S. government’s lawsuit against Colorado and Denver. The lawsuit alleged that various local policies violated the U.S. Constitution by impeding federal immigration enforcement. That ruling came after federal courts in Illinois and New York rejected similar DOJ lawsuits attacking so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
The enactment of House Bill 9 (HB9) and the city ordinance essentially put a target on the back of the State and City. Both are no strangers to litigation with the Trump Administration and have in fact prevailed repeatedly. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez in particular has bragged about the fact his office has successfully sued President Trump 44 times.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez was absolutely correct when he said the “USDOJ complaint] is an attempt to use federal litigation to reverse an outcome the administration dislikes. We will see them in court.” Given the overall nature of the civil complaint filed by the DOJ against the State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque, and the dismissal of cases against Denver and Colorado, it is more likely than not that the case will wind up before Trump’s appointed MAGA United States Supreme Court where the final outcome will be uncertain.
Links to quoted or relied upon news sources are here:
https://www.koat.com/article/new-mexico-doj-lawsuit-albuquerque-immigration/71255876
https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/doj-sues-new-mexico-and-albuquerque-over-immigration-enforcement/
https://www.abqjournal.com/news/doj-sues-new-mexico-albuquerque-over-sanctuary-policies/3039327