As federal immigration enforcement battles continue to play out in courts across the country, judges have been weighing how far Washington can go in forcing local governments to assist. That question reached southeastern Michigan on August 21, when a federal judge dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Washtenaw County. The ruling centered on county policies that limit cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement and restrict access to county property without legal process.
Judge throws out the federal case against Washtenaw County
U.S. District Judge F. Kay Behm dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit on Friday, August 21, according to court reporting by CBS Detroit and prior court filings summarized by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. The case, filed April 9, named Washtenaw County, its Board of Commissioners, Sheriff Alyshia Dyer, the sheriff’s office, Prosecutor Eli Savit and the prosecutor’s office. In its April announcement, the Justice Department said the lawsuit was one of a broader series targeting local sanctuary-style policies.
Behm wrote that federal officials had failed to show the county did anything beyond exercising authority protected by the Tenth Amendment, CBS Detroit reported from the court’s order. The judge also wrote that the federal government cannot require local officials to carry out presidential immigration priorities in the way it prefers, according to that report. The Justice Department had asked the court to declare the county’s policies unlawful and block their enforcement.
The suit focused on a county board resolution and related local directives. According to the Justice Department’s complaint, the county barred federal immigration officers from county-owned buildings and limited staff participation in civil immigration enforcement. Washtenaw County responded in a June 17 motion to dismiss, arguing that most cooperation with federal immigration enforcement is voluntary and that its policies comply with federal law, according to Michigan Public.
The ruling directly affects Washtenaw County, home to Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and several county-operated public safety and court facilities. As of the dismissal, the county’s challenged policies remain in place, including rules that restrict federal civil immigration activity on county property unless officers have a valid judicial warrant or court order, according to the Justice Department’s complaint and prior local reporting.
What is confirmed is that the federal court rejected the Justice Department’s legal theory in this case at the trial-court level. What is not yet known is whether the Justice Department will appeal the dismissal. CBS Detroit reported Friday night that it had requested comment from the department and was awaiting a response.
County officials had said the policies were designed to preserve local resources and maintain public trust in law enforcement, according to the June motion described by Michigan Public. The county has not announced any policy changes in response to the ruling. No new directive altering sheriff, prosecutor or county board practices had been publicly released as of Friday evening.
The dispute is part of a wider national push by the Justice Department against local governments that decline to take part in federal immigration enforcement. In its April 10 announcement, the department said the Washtenaw case was the latest in a series of similar lawsuits around the country. Michigan Public reported in June that judges had already thrown out several other DOJ cases involving Boston, Denver and Los Angeles.
Washtenaw County’s legal argument relied heavily on the anti-commandeering principle in the Tenth Amendment. In its motion, the county said federal law bars states and local governments from withholding citizenship or immigration-status information when specifically requested, but does not generally require them to use local staff, buildings or budgets to help federal agents. That distinction was central to the county’s defense.
For residents, the immediate takeaway is narrow but significant: the county’s current rules stay in force unless a higher court intervenes or local officials change them. The decision does not alter federal immigration law itself, and it does not prevent federal officers from acting under their own authority where the law allows. For now, the case stands as another federal court ruling limiting Washington’s ability to compel local participation in immigration enforcement.