Spanberger's ICE restrictions dealt major setback as judge warns other blue states

Virginia Judge Halts New ICE‑Cooperation Law While Maryland Faces Parallel Legal Battle

A federal judge in Virginia has put a hold on a recently passed law that would have forced local sheriffs to alter or abandon agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The ruling comes amid a federal lawsuit that argues the statute violates the U.S. Constitution’s Contracts Clause and improperly tries to regulate federal law‑enforcement conduct.

The law, signed by Governor Abigail Spanberger, is part of a broader effort by the state’s administration to curb cooperation between local law‑enforcement agencies and ICE. Under the statute, sheriffs were required to modify or dissolve existing 287(g) agreements—contracts that allow local officers to assist ICE with immigration enforcement—by the following Tuesday. The federal government has sued, contending that the law interferes with federally mandated cooperation and imposes a “substantial impairment” on contracts already in place.

Judge Robert Payne, a federal district court judge appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, issued his decision on Monday. While he did not strike down the law outright, he paused its implementation pending the outcome of the federal suit. In his ruling, Payne said that the Virginia law “violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a ‘substantial impairment’ of the existing contracts between the federal government and Virginia localities.”

The judge also found that the statute attempts to regulate the conduct of federal law‑enforcement officers in the enforcement of federal immigration laws—a role that, according to the court, is not within state jurisdiction.

State officials responded with mixed reactions. Virginia House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore said, “At this point, saying ‘I told you so’ seems almost pointless. States cannot tell the federal government how to do its job. But Democrats refused to listen.” Kilgore noted that Republicans had warned Spanberger’s administration that the new law could waste taxpayer money and trigger legal challenges.

Congressional response has been swift as well. Representative Ben Cline, a Republican from Virginia, has drafted a federal “287(g) Cooperation Act” that would make federal Community‑Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants contingent on state and local law‑enforcement agencies entering into agreements with ICE. All five Republican members of Virginia’s congressional delegation sent a letter to Governor Spanberger earlier in the year urging her not to reverse the state’s previous directive that encouraged cooperation with Washington.

The Virginia case is unfolding at the same time a similar dispute is unfolding in neighboring Maryland. Governor Wes Moore allowed a law to become effective earlier this year that restricts cooperation between local sheriffs and ICE. The legislation does not outright ban cooperation but imposes strict conditions that many local law‑enforcement agencies find burdensome.

A coalition of 17 of the state’s 24 sheriffs—led by Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler, Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis and Frederick County Sheriff Charles Jenkins—has sued the Maryland law, arguing it “handcuffs law enforcement, handcuffs sheriffs across the state.” The suit was filed in federal court in Greenbelt, and a judge has yet to render a decision.

The Maryland law, known as the Community Trust Act, was championed by Senator Clarence Lam, a Democrat from Elkridge, who contended that the measure would prevent local jails from being used as a “front door to the federal government’s oft‑times deportation pipeline.” The act requires a court order before local authorities can provide immigration‑related information or transfer inmates based on immigration status.

Despite Governor Moore’s refusal to personally sign the bill, it became law after he notified Senate President Bill Ferguson of its passage, following a 32‑to‑15 vote in the Senate. The pending lawsuit in Maryland echoes the federal court action in Virginia and could result in similar injunctions or policy changes.

As both states grapple with the balance between local autonomy and federal immigration enforcement, the federal government’s legal challenges underscore the constitutional limits on state interference. The outcomes of the lawsuits in Virginia and Maryland will likely shape the future of local‑federal cooperation across the country.