From Sacramento to St. Paul, from Portland to Richmond, a new American map is taking shape, not divided by red and blue, but by enforcement and sanctuary. On Aug. 11, 2025, protesters filled Richmond City Hall plaza with placards reading “ICE Out of Richmond!” after a series of unannounced federal arrests. Activists accused ICE of operating “like kidnappers,” demanding the city formally sever cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. (RELATED: Meet the Criminals Anti-ICE Protesters Are Fighting to Shield)

These demonstrations captured a growing reality: sanctuary jurisdictions are becoming pockets of defiance, invoking moral duty to shield immigrant residents even as the Trump administration moves to discipline them through lawsuits, funding threats, and troop deployments. The struggle is no longer rhetorical — it is cartographic. (RELATED: The Sanctuary State Confederacy)

What began as a handful of liberal enclaves in the 1990s has grown into an archipelago of resistance numbering in the hundreds. At least 17 states — including California, Illinois, Oregon, and Minnesota, plus the District of Columbia — restrict local entanglement with federal immigration enforcement. (RELATED: New York City’s Sanctuary Laws Are Worse Than You Think)

In response, 22 states have enacted “anti-sanctuary” laws compelling cooperation with ICE. Even within those states, cities like Austin and New Orleans are pushing back, rewriting local ordinances to limit information-sharing and detainer compliance. The country now functions as a legal mosaic — its borders internal as much as external. (RELATED: Sanctuary Cities Are in Insurrection)

President Trump’s 2025 return to immigration as a governing crusade accelerated this fragmentation. In April, he signed Executive Order 14287, “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” directing the Justice Department to compile and publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions and to cut off federal aid to those that “defy immigration law.”

On August 5, the DOJ released its first list, identifying 13 states and dozens of cities. The executive branch was literally attempting to redraw the country-one punitive map at a time. But each attempt to centralize control has been met by counter-mapping from below, as governors and judges act as the new cartographers of federalism. (RELATED: Import the Third World, Become the Third World)

No state embodies this dynamic like California. When Trump tried to deploy roughly 200 California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon — despite objections from both states — U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut blocked the move, calling it an unconstitutional end-run around state sovereignty. Governor Gavin Newsom celebrated the ruling as “a victory for democracy itself,” declaring that “Trump tried to turn our soldiers into instruments of his political will-and the rule of law said hell no.” Attorney General Rob Bonta condemned the order as “flagrant disregard” for constitutional boundaries. (RELATED: Newsom’s Search for the Secret Police)

The injunction reaffirmed that even in an era of executive muscle-flexing, states control their own troops.

In late August, Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California expanded a nationwide injunction protecting more than 30 jurisdictions — including Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago — from the administration’s bid to withhold homeland-security funds. He likened the administration’s threats to “holding a gun to the head of local government,” a violation of the Constitution’s Spending Clause. California officials praised the ruling as building a “legal wall” around their budgets; Trump’s DHS called it “activist overreach.” The Golden State has effectively become a parallel jurisdiction in immigration affairs, defending its autonomy in courts and legislatures alike.

The conflict has now reached the Upper Midwest. On Sept. 29, 2025, the Justice Department sued Minnesota, naming the state, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County. The complaint alleges that local ordinances led to the release of individuals convicted of assault, burglary, and human trafficking rather than their transfer to ICE. Attorney General Pam Bondi charged that state officials were “endangering public safety by letting violent offenders walk free.” The filing seeks to invalidate Minnesota’s sanctuary statutes under the Supremacy Clause.

Minnesota’s reply was unmistakably defiant. Attorney General Keith Ellison called the suit “baseless political retaliation.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey insisted his city “will not back down,” while St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter vowed to “stand with our immigrant neighbors no matter how many unconstitutional claims come from the White House.” Having already won two federal cases this year, Carter added, “We’ll win our third against this embarrassing federal regime.” Their stance echoes the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine: Washington may not conscript state officials to administer federal law. The courts will now decide whether that principle survives the administration’s onslaught.

Further south, sanctuary has entered the ballot box. In Virginia’s gubernatorial race, Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger has pledged to rescind Executive Order 47, which requires state and local police to assist ICE. She argues that turning sheriffs into immigration agents “misuses resources and undermines trust.” Republican incumbent Glenn Youngkin warns that Spanberger would “turn Virginia into a sanctuary state for dangerous illegal immigrants,” while Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, herself a Jamaican-born citizen, accuses Spanberger of “putting criminals over Virginians.” (RELATED: It’s Good v. Evil. It’s Always Been Good v. Evil.)

The debate mirrors the national split: is local defiance a moral stand or a breach of order? The former capital of the Confederacy is now the stage for a reversal-progressives invoking resistance in defense of humanitarian law rather than segregationist defiance.

Sanctuary laws rest on the Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering precedents, Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018), which affirm that the federal government cannot force state officers to enforce federal statutes. Trump’s lawyers counter that such policies constitute nullification, invoking the Supremacy Clause. But federal judges — including Trump appointees — have repeatedly rebuked executive overreach. Judge Orrick’s August ruling is one example; another came from U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Rhode Island, who on October 2 blocked Trump’s attempt to divert $233 million in Homeland Security grants from sanctuary states, calling the policy “arbitrary and unconstitutional.” Each ruling redraws a legal border the White House cannot cross.

As autumn 2025 closes, the standoff endures. The Justice Department issues new “sanctuary lists” like wanted posters; California and Minnesota rack up fresh court victories; and local candidates from Portland to Richmond campaign on promises of resistance. The United States has become a nation of moral cartographers, redrawing its internal boundaries between enforcement and conscience. Every ruling, ordinance, and rally etches a new line onto that map — a country partitioned not by color, but by conviction. And somewhere between Sacramento’s defiance and Washington’s decree, the new shape of American sovereignty is being drawn, one sanctuary at a time.

READ MORE from Kevin Cohen:

Meet the Criminals Anti-ICE Protesters Are Fighting to Shield

The Four Rings of Terror — How Violence Targets Conservative America

The Human Ledger: How Cartels Reduce Migrant Women to Line Items of Profit