Governor Murphy’s New Policy: Shifts in Immigration Cooperation Explored

Police officers in riot gear with shields.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has ordered state police to stop cooperating with federal immigration officials, setting up a direct confrontation between state and federal authority that could have far-reaching legal consequences.

Quick Takes

Governor Murphy directed New Jersey law enforcement to cease cooperation with ICE, reinforcing the state’s 2018 Immigrant Trust Directive.
State police have been instructed not to treat ICE administrative warrants as “NCIC Hits” and are prohibited from notifying federal authorities.
U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba warned that “Executive Orders will be followed and enforced in the State of New Jersey”.
Murphy previously boasted about interfering with ICE operations and possibly housing an illegal immigrant on his property.
The directive creates a significant constitutional challenge regarding state autonomy versus federal law enforcement authority.

Murphy’s Directive Blocks State Cooperation with ICE

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has escalated tensions with federal authorities by instructing state law enforcement agencies to cease cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The directive, supported by Attorney General Matt Platkin, reinforces New Jersey’s 2018 Immigrant Trust Directive that prohibits local police from interfacing with ICE on administrative warrants. This policy clash comes at a time when the Trump administration has added over 27,000 “Outstanding Administrative Warrants for Removal” to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.

NJ Governor Defies ICE -Orders Local Police to End Cooperation with Immigration Officials https://t.co/s4nPTptMGb pic.twitter.com/RDmnaOAJUK

— Julio 🇵🇷 (@combatinsight) April 10, 2025

Colonel Patrick Callahan of the New Jersey State Police issued a detailed memo to all officers, explicitly instructing them not to treat ICE administrative warrants as legitimate “NCIC Hits.” The directive prohibits officers from contacting ICE when encountering individuals who appear on these federal alert lists. Furthermore, state law enforcement is forbidden from making arrests based solely on administrative immigration warrants, setting up a direct challenge to federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Governor’s History of Opposing Federal Immigration Enforcement

This is not the first time Governor Murphy has positioned himself against federal immigration enforcement. In previous statements, Murphy claimed he personally interfered with ICE operations near his Middletown mansion. After President Trump’s recent election victory, Murphy recounted a specific incident where he believed ICE was planning an enforcement operation in his neighborhood, prompting him to take action with his security detail.

More recently, Murphy sparked controversy by suggesting he was housing an illegal immigrant on his property. This admission drew sharp criticism from Trump border czar Tom Homan, who suggested Murphy’s actions could potentially lead to prosecution under U.S. immigration law. The governor’s statements reveal a consistent pattern of resistance to federal immigration enforcement efforts, positioning New Jersey as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

Constitutional Showdown Between State and Federal Authority

The directive has triggered a serious constitutional debate about the limits of state autonomy versus federal supremacy in immigration enforcement. U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba responded firmly to Murphy’s order, emphasizing that federal authority would not be undermined. “Let me be clear: Executive Orders will be followed and enforced in the State of New Jersey,” warned Habba. Her statement directly challenges the governor’s directive and signals potential federal intervention.

Proponents of Murphy’s directive argue it promotes public safety by maintaining trust within immigrant communities, encouraging crime reporting without fear of deportation. Critics counter that the policy directly undermines lawful federal immigration enforcement and creates dangerous gaps in public safety by allowing potentially deportable individuals to remain in communities. The clash illuminates broader national tensions over immigration policy, with New Jersey now at the epicenter of a legal battle that could potentially reach the Supreme Court.

Potential Consequences for Law Enforcement

New Jersey officers now find themselves caught between conflicting directives from state and federal authorities. Colonel Callahan’s memo explicitly warns officers that they must comply strictly with the directive or face disciplinary and legal consequences. This places law enforcement in the difficult position of determining which authority to follow, potentially compromising their ability to maintain public safety and uphold the law.

As immigration remains a divisive and central issue in American politics, New Jersey’s defiance represents a significant challenge to federal authority. The standoff sets the stage for a potential landmark legal battle that will test the constitutional boundaries between state autonomy and federal supremacy in immigration enforcement. The resolution of this conflict could establish important precedents for state-federal relations under the Trump administration and shape immigration policy enforcement nationwide.