Federal Judge Blocks Virginia’s Anti-ICE Policing Law

A federal judge has halted enforcement of a contentious Virginia law that would have barred local police departments from cooperating with U.S. immigration authorities—a ruling that hands an early victory to the Department of Justice and sets up a protracted legal battle over states’ powers to limit immigration enforcement.

On August 31, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia issued a preliminary injunction in United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, blocking key provisions of Virginia Code § 15.2-1726.1 (SB 783/HB 1441), which Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed into law on April 22. The order preserves existing 287(g) agreements—federal contracts that allow state and local officers to perform immigration enforcement functions—while litigation continues.

What the Virginia Law Would Have Done

The statute required all 287(g) agreements to be rewritten to include a laundry list of conditions demanded by Virginia Democrats, including advance notice of ICE operations, public identification of federal agents, limits on information-sharing, and other provisions. State law enforcement would also have been barred from working with ICE unless a judicial warrant was obtained for every detained individual. Perhaps most aggressively, the law automatically voided and summarily cancelled any agreement not altered to meet those requirements—a provision Judge Payne took particular issue with.

In his ruling, Payne determined that the automatic cancellation clause and other restrictions likely conflict with federal immigration law and the Supremacy Clause. He noted that a full trial on the merits would probably favor the federal government, and he ordered the injunction to maintain the status quo while the case is pending.

Justice Department’s Argument

The Department of Justice brought the lawsuit, arguing that the Virginia law discriminates against the federal government by abrogating existing contracts and impeding lawful immigration enforcement duties. Federal attorneys contend that states cannot unilaterally rewrite or nullify cooperative agreements that Congress authorized under 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Virginia’s Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones quickly signaled his intent to fight the ruling. In a statement to reporters, Jones said: “My office strongly disagrees with the judge’s order and will urgently file a motion to stay this ruling and appeal the temporary injunction.”

Jones defended the legislation on states’-rights grounds, arguing that “The General Assembly was well within its legal authority to pass this law and to put statutory requirements in place to ensure Virginia’s already resource-constrained localities and law enforcement agencies are not devoting critical resources toward carrying out responsibilities that rest solely with the federal government.”

Broader Context

The injunction is the latest flashpoint in a national fight over immigration enforcement cooperation. Virginia’s law was among several state-level measures passed in recent years to curb local police involvement in federal immigration actions—often dubbed “sanctuary” policies—while the Trump administration and DOJ have pushed back legally, arguing that such measures obstruct federal operations and violate constitutional principles.

The preliminary injunction does not end the case. The court will likely schedule further proceedings, and an appeal from the state is expected. Should the injunction be upheld, existing 287(g) agreements in Virginia would remain in effect, allowing local law enforcement to continue cooperating with ICE as they did prior to the law’s enactment.

Judge Payne’s decision aligns with previous rulings in other circuits where courts have struck down or limited state laws that interfere with federal immigration enforcement. However, the outcome in Virginia could set a precedent for similar disputes being litigated across the country.

Observers note that the case touches on core questions about the balance of power between state and federal governments—specifically, whether states can impose conditions on their participation in voluntary federal programs without running afoul of the Constitution’s supremacy clause. The Supreme Court has weighed in on related issues in the past, but this case could clarify the limits of state authority over 287(g) agreements.

For now, Virginia’s localities with active 287(g) agreements can breathe easier, as their existing arrangements remain valid. But the legal uncertainty persists, and both sides are gearing up for a prolonged court fight that could eventually reach the nation’s highest court.

This article is based on reporting from Breitbart News.

Source: www.breitbart.com — https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2026/09/03/federal-court-blocks-virginia-law-banning-police-from-working-with-ice/