Pass the Popcorn: DoJ Sues Sherrill Over Access Ban on ICE

Mikie Sherrill transformed so quickly into Orval Faubus that people barely noticed. Or is it George Wallace? Tim Walz, perhaps?

New Jersey’s new governor has decided to step up and become the next US governor to learn basic civics only while in office. And only when a federal judge has to provide tutoring, it seems:

The U.S. Department of Justice is suing New Jersey to overturn Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s executive order limiting ICE agents’ presence on state-owned property, arguing it violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause.

“Such blatant disregard for federal laws that have been on the books for over three decades is not merely a political statement, but is instead deliberate action that jeopardizes the public safety of all Americans. But the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits a state from usurping Congress,” reads the three-count lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Newark and announced Tuesday in a press release.

Sherrill, a Democrat who won the November election in a landslide, issued Executive Order 12 this month, which bars immigration authorities from non-public parts of state-owned property unless they have a judicial warrant. It also prohibits them from using state property as a “staging area, processing location, or operations base.”

That’s not how the Constitution works. That’s not how any of this works. Orval Faubus and George Wallace learned that lesson decades ago; Tim Walz got taught it last month, although it’s still not clear that he learned anything. 

To put it briefly: the federal government has jurisdiction to enforce federal law throughout the United States, including on property owned by state and local governments. This is not an esoteric function of sovereignty; it’s the core of sovereignty. It springs directly from Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, which reads: 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In this case, the conflict doesn’t even involve a law. Sherrill issued an executive order, not a statute passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. Such a law still would not overrule the Supremacy Clause, and an executive order has even less weight. 

Interestingly, the lawsuit uses a kitchen-sink approach. It argues for the application of the Supremacy Clause and that Sherrill is, in fact, illegally discriminating against federal officers by blocking access to public spaces. That is a novel and somewhat amusing argument, but also accurate and actionable:

8. On its face, the Executive Order prevents federal immigration agents from using stateowned property accessible to local and state law enforcement. The sole reason for the exclusionary treatment of federal immigration agents enforcing our Nation’s federal immigration laws is New Jersey’s disagreement with the substance of the laws written by Congress that have remained on the books and largely unchanged for half a century. …

10. The New Jersey Executive Order intentionally discriminates against the Federal Government by treating federal immigration authorities differently than other law enforcement agents through access restrictions to property. 

11. The Supremacy Clause prohibits New Jersey and its officials from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment—as the challenged Executive Order does— thereby discriminating against the Federal Government. Using publicly owned property such as a parking lot, office building, or public garage for staging, base operations, or processing reduces the safety risks to the public, illegal aliens, and law enforcement officers.

Even without the Supremacy Clause, on what basis can the state of New Jersey deny public access to public spaces to federal employees? The Supremacy Clause is sufficient for a court to tell Sherrill to pound sand, but the court – or more likely, an appellate panel – might be interested in lecturing the governor on this point as well. 

Bet on the application of the Supremacy Clause to be the main point, though. The lawsuit cites precedent in the same circuit that applies directly to the conflict at hand:

14. As this Court decided in CoreCivic, Inc. v. Murphy, “a state law that wholesale deprives the federal government of its chosen method of detaining individuals for violating federal law cannot survive Supremacy Clause scrutiny.” CoreCivic, Inc. v. Murphy, 690 F. Supp. 3d 467, 478 (D.N.J. 2023). The Third Circuit affirmed that decision, holding that “thevery essence of supremacy empowers the federal government to remove all obstacles toits action within its own sphere . . . [and] exempt its own operations from [state]influence.” CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of NJ, 145 F.4th 315, 321 (3d Cir. 2025) (internalquotations and citations omitted). … 

33. Thus, a state enactment is invalid if it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment andexecution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312U.S. 52, 67 (1941), or if it “discriminate[s] against the United States or those with whomit deals,” South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 (1988).34. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause also embodies the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which “generally immunizes the Federal Government from state laws thatdirectly regulate or discriminate against it.” United States v. Washington, 596 U.S. 832,835 (2022) (citing Baker, 485 U.S. at 523).

35. A State or local law violates this doctrine if it “regulates the United States directly ordiscriminates against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals.” NorthDakota, 495 U.S. at 435. Discrimination occurs when a state or locality “treats someoneelse better than” the federal government, id. at 438, or singles out the federal governmentfor “less favorable ‘treatment.’” Washington, 596 U.S. at 839.

The relief sought in this case seems simple and reasonable, especially given the basic nature of the constitutional violation:

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests the following relief:

1. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that the challenged Executive Order violates theSupremacy Clause and is therefore invalid;

2. That this Court issue a permanent injunction that prohibits Defendants as well as theirsuccessors, agents, and employees, from enforcing or implementing the challengedExecutive Order;

3. That this Court award the United States its costs and fees in this action; and

4. That this Court award any other relief it deems just and proper.

The first and second requests are con-law no-brainers. Request #3 should be granted as a disincentive for equally specious attempts to defy federal authority and jurisdiction, but the court may just decide to let everyone pay their own court and attorney costs. The amount in question won’t disincentivize other blue-state governors from attempting the same stunt; it’s not about the costs to taxpayers. 

If Sherrill is lucky, the court will impose a TRO without comment. If Sherrill is really this dumb, she’ll push it to the appellate circuit and force them to comment on her basic civics illiteracy. 

Editor’s Note: Democrat politicians and their radical supporters will do everything they can to interfere with and threaten ICE agents enforcing our immigration laws.

Help us hold these leftists accountable and expose their obstruction. Use the promo code POTUS47 to join our VIP membership program today and get 74% off!