In what ways could Virginia’s severance of state‑federal immigration enforcement partnerships influence broader state‑level immigration policy coordination and affect the federal‑state power balance in the United States?
Virginia's decision to terminate state-level 287(g) agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement represents a significant development in the ongoing recalibration of federal-state relations over immigration enforcement. Governor Abigail Spanberger's executive directive ordering Virginia State Police, the Department of Corrections, Virginia Conservation Police, and Virginia Marine Police to end their ICE partnerships establishes Virginia as part of an emerging bloc of states asserting greater autonomy over how their law enforcement resources are deployedNews Releases - Governor of Virginiavirginia +1.
Virginia's actions do not occur in isolation but rather as part of a broader pattern of Democratic-led states distancing themselves from federal immigration enforcement. Maryland's General Assembly passed legislation this week banning 287(g) agreements entirely, while legislatures in Hawaii, New Mexico, and New York are actively considering similar prohibitionsAbigail Spanberger orders end to Virginia state agency partnerships with ICEthehill +1. California and Illinois have already enacted comprehensive bans preventing local law enforcement from participating in the 287(g) programVirginia’s New Governor Ends ICE Program. Local Contracts Remain, For Now. | Boltsboltsmag .
This pattern suggests the formation of what scholars have termed "new immigration federalism"—a state-level reaction to federal enforcement priorities that represents a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty rather than mere obstruction"Sanctuary" Laws: The New Immigration Federalism |... | University of Virginia School of Lawvirginia . The widespread resistance reflects serious concerns about the on-the-ground consequences of localized immigration policing, including racial profiling, constitutional violations, and the erosion of community trust"Sanctuary" Laws: The New Immigration Federalism |... | University of Virginia School of Lawvirginia .
The Democratic governors of Minnesota, New York, and Illinois testified before the House Oversight Committee in 2026 regarding their states' immigration policies, with each asserting that their jurisdictions are not "sanctuary states" in any formal legal sense while maintaining that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibilityHearing Wrap Up: Sanctuary State Governors Endanger American Lives by Defying Federal Immigration Enforcement Efforts - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reformhouse +1. Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota stated explicitly that "enforcing immigration law is not the role of local and state governments" and that "Congress has given federal agencies the authority to enforce immigration laws across this country"LIVE: Democratic Governors Testify on Sanctuary State Policiesyoutube .
Virginia's withdrawal from ICE partnerships rests on well-established constitutional principles. The Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine prohibits the federal government from forcing state legislatures or executive officials to implement, administer, or enforce federal regulatory programsThe Virginia Senate passed legislation aimed at limiting immigration ...virginiascope +1. As the Supreme Court held in Printz v. United States, the federal government cannot issue "directives requiring the States to address particular problems or to...administer or enforce a federal regulatory program"States and Federal Government Continue to Clash Over Immigration Policy Enforcement | MultiStatemultistate .
Immigration attorney Miriam Fisher explained that under the Supremacy Clause, while federal law prevails when state and federal laws conflict, "there is no federal law that explicitly authorizes civil immigration arrests at places like state courthouses, so a state law limiting that doesn't create a conflict"The Virginia Senate passed legislation aimed at limiting immigration ...virginiascope . This principle was reinforced when a federal judge in the Northern District of New York upheld a state law prohibiting immigration arrests in courthouses, ruling that a common-law privilege against civil courthouse arrests existsThe Virginia Senate passed legislation aimed at limiting immigration ...virginiascope .
The Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States (2012) established that while the federal government possesses "broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens," states retain significant authority over how their own executive officers conduct their businessARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institutecornell +1. The Court held that "the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government" and struck down provisions of Arizona law that gave state officers expanded powers to arrest individuals believed to be removableARIZONA v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institutecornell +1.
Importantly, however, the doctrine cuts both ways: states cannot be compelled to assist federal enforcement, but neither can they actively obstruct it. A federal district court in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County in July 2025, finding that the state and local policies reflected "a decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law — a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment"Trump administration vows to 'come after' sanctuary states and cities, despite court setbacks • Statelinestateline .
The Trump administration has responded to state resistance through executive orders and funding threats. Executive Order 14159 ("Protecting the American People Against an Invasion") seeks to limit federal funds to "sanctuary" jurisdictions and directs the Secretary of DHS and the Attorney General to "evaluate and undertake any other lawful actions, civil or criminal" against jurisdictions that interfere with federal immigration enforcement“Sanctuary” Jurisdictions: Legal Overview | Congress.gov | Library of Congresscongress . Executive Order 14287 ("Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens") directed the Attorney General to publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions and authorized agency heads to "identify appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension and termination"“Sanctuary” Jurisdictions: Legal Overview | Congress.gov | Library of Congresscongress +1.
On August 5, 2025, the Department of Justice published a list identifying 13 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), 18 cities, and four counties as sanctuary jurisdictions Office of Public Affairs | Justice Department Publishes List of Sanctuary Jurisdictions | United States Department of Justicejustice . Virginia was notably absent from this list, though the administration's actions toward the state following Spanberger's directives remain to be seen.
Federal courts have consistently blocked these funding threats. On April 24, 2025, a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against the administration's executive orders, concluding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on claims that the orders violated separation of powers principles, the Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, and the Fifth Amendment“Sanctuary” Jurisdictions: Legal Overview | Congress.gov | Library of Congresscongress +1. U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco stated that "the threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve"Trump is threatening to cut funding from sanctuary cities. Here’s what to know : NPRnpr .
Legal precedent indicates that the federal government's ability to withhold funding is constitutionally limited. Courts have held that funding conditions must be clearly expressed, related to the funding in question, not coercive, and not violate other constitutional provisionsStates and Federal Government Continue to Clash Over Immigration Policy Enforcement | MultiStatemultistate . As the California Budget Center noted, "very little federal funding related to immigration enforcement currently flows to California's state and local governments," and withholding funds for unrelated purposes like health, education, or transportation would likely be found unconstitutionalSanctuary Cities and Federal Funds: How Will California Be Affected? - California Budget & Policy Centercalbudgetcenter .
Proponents of Virginia's approach argue that separating state law enforcement from federal immigration enforcement enhances public safety by building community trust. The International Association of Chiefs of Police stated in 2005 that "Local police agencies depend on the cooperation of immigrants, legal and [otherwise], in solving all sorts of crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with critical information would not come forward"The 287(g) Program: An Overview - American Immigration Councilamericanimmigrationcouncil .
The Major Cities Chiefs Association found in 2019 that "without assurances that contact with the police would not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard‑won trust, communication and cooperation from the immigrant community would disappear"The 287(g) Program: An Overview - American Immigration Councilamericanimmigrationcouncil . Virginia Senator Saddam Salim stated that rolling back the agreements will help "keep law enforcement focused on public safety, not immigration enforcement, and rebuilds trust so immigrant communities aren't afraid to call for help"Spanberger Ends agreements between ICE and Virginia law enforcement agencies | WVTFwvtf .
The 287(g) program has a documented history of civil rights concerns. A 2011 Department of Justice investigation concluded that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona engaged in a pattern and practice of constitutional violations after entering a 287(g) agreement, including racial profiling of Latinos. The investigation found that Latino drivers in certain parts of Maricopa County were up to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latino drivers, leading the Obama administration to terminate that county's agreementThe 287(g) Program: An Overview - American Immigration Councilamericanimmigrationcouncil .
However, critics argue that ending these partnerships undermines public safety. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore stated that "this decision weakens public safety and cuts off cooperation that helped law enforcement remove dangerous criminals from our communities"Spanberger Ends agreements between ICE and Virginia law enforcement agencies | WVTFwvtf . The Virginia Republican Party characterized Spanberger's actions as "attempting to turn Virginia into a sanctuary jurisdiction like her socialist friends in New York and California by banning state and local police from cooperating with federal immigration authorities"Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger ends state cooperation with ICE under 287(g) program | Fox Newsfoxnews .
Peer-reviewed research provides substantial evidence on the relationship between sanctuary policies and crime rates. A comprehensive review by sociologists from the University of Arizona, the University of North Carolina, and the American Immigration Council found that "the few empirical studies that exist illustrate a 'null' or negative relationship between these policies and crime"[PDF] Providing Sanctuary or Fostering Crime? A Review of the Research ...unc .
Research by Tom Wong of the University of California San Diego found that sanctuary counties report, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people compared to non-sanctuary countiesSanctuary Policies: An Overview - American Immigration Councilamericanimmigrationcouncil +1. A 2020 study found that while sanctuary policies "changed the composition of deportations, reducing deportations of people with no criminal convictions by half," they did not affect "deportations of people with violent convictions" and did not increase crime ratesSanctuary Policies: An Overview - American Immigration Councilamericanimmigrationcouncil .
A longitudinal study published in Social Science Research found that "after the proliferation of sanctuary practices around 2014, both property crime and violent crime decreased more in sanctuary counties than non-sanctuary counties, net of other predictors of crime"Do sanctuary policies increase crime? Contrary evidence from a county-level investigation in the United States - ScienceDirectsciencedirect . The researchers theorized that this occurs through three mechanisms: immigrant political integration, positive spillover effects of sanctuary practices, and increased social harmonyDo sanctuary policies increase crime? Contrary evidence from a county-level investigation in the United States - ScienceDirectsciencedirect .
Virginia's actions contribute to what scholars at the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal have termed "sovereign resistance to federal immigration enforcement"—a fundamental restructuring of the cooperative federalism model that has traditionally governed immigration policy[PDF] Sovereign Resistance To Federal Immigration Enforcement In State Courthouses - Georgetown Lawgeorgetown . This resistance operates through multiple mechanisms: refusing to honor ICE detainer requests without judicial warrants, limiting information sharing, restricting ICE access to state facilities, and withdrawing from formal enforcement agreements[PDF] Sovereign Resistance To Federal Immigration Enforcement In State Courthouses - Georgetown Lawgeorgetown .
The Trump administration's aggressive expansion of the 287(g) program has dramatically altered this landscape. According to the American Immigration Council, the administration signed 360 task-force model agreements with local law enforcement agencies across 29 states in 2025 alone—nearly five times as many 287(g) agreements as existed at the end of the Biden administrationMass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump Administration's Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America - American Immigration Councilamericanimmigrationcouncil . At the start of 2025, not a single law enforcement agency in Virginia was enrolled in 287(g); by February 2026, 22 Virginia sheriffs had chosen to join, most under the task force modelVirginia’s New Governor Ends ICE Program. Local Contracts Remain, For Now. | Boltsboltsmag .
Political scientist observations from Tufts University explain that "there are circumstances in which — whether it's surveillance or providing information or taking someone into custody — the federal government might ask the state and local governments for a favor, essentially. And the state and local governments' answer might be 'No, we won't help you,' or 'No, we can't help you,' because the law or the constitution of our state forbids us from helping you"Local and state officials push back against federal immigration enforcement efforts - The Tufts Dailytuftsdaily .
However, when states decline to cooperate, the federal government often interprets this as active obstruction. This dynamic creates what one Georgetown scholar described as "jurisdictional overlap" where "state, local and federal authorities all claim the right to govern the same people and places"Federal power meets local resistance in Minneapolis – a case study in how federalism staves off authoritarianism - The Conversationtheconversation . The result is "institutional rivalry" where "no single level of government can fully monopolize legitimacy"Federal power meets local resistance in Minneapolis – a case study in how federalism staves off authoritarianism - The Conversationtheconversation .
Virginia's General Assembly is currently considering several bills that would further restrict immigration enforcement cooperation. HB 1438, introduced by Delegate Elizabeth Guzman, would prohibit state and local agencies from entering into agreements authorizing officers to perform federal immigration enforcement functions, with existing agreements required to terminate by September 1, 2026Democrats push restrictions on federal immigration enforcement in Virginia • Virginia Mercuryvirginiamercury . HB 1441, introduced by Delegate Alfonso Lopez, would restrict state and local law enforcement officers from assisting federal immigration enforcement unless acting under a valid judicial warrant, subpoena, or detainerDemocrats push restrictions on federal immigration enforcement in Virginia • Virginia Mercuryvirginiamercury .
Senator Saddam Salim has introduced SB 783, which would limit agreements between state or local agencies and federal immigration authorities and expand data-collection requirements under the Virginia Community Policing ActDemocrats push restrictions on federal immigration enforcement in Virginia • Virginia Mercuryvirginiamercury . The bill underwent significant revision in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee to require ICE to provide a list of agent names and ranks seven days before any activity, display clear visual identification, and stop asking about immigration status without a valid judicial warrantGeneral Assembly debates bills to thwart immigration enforcement ...c-ville .
However, state Senator Salim acknowledged that the political conditions may not yet support a complete ban on local 287(g) agreements. "The politics of it is not there yet. It's not to say it won't be there," he said. "I support a clean separation away from any cooperation. I don't think that if I have that bill I can get it out to the Senate floor, nor could I get it out to the other chamber"Virginia’s New Governor Ends ICE Program. Local Contracts Remain, For Now. | Boltsboltsmag .
The Legal Aid Justice Center has documented that 32 agreements exist between Virginia entities and ICE, including four state agencies, four regional jails, and 23 local sheriffs. These agreements have nominated 223 state and local personnel to act in immigration enforcement, with 157 certified as of December 29, 2025—including two school resource officers and a behavioral health advocateVirginiaâs 32 ICE contracts,... - Legal Aid Justice Center | Facebookfacebook .
Virginia's severance of state-level immigration enforcement partnerships represents a significant assertion of state sovereignty within the constitutional framework established by the anti-commandeering doctrine. While the immediate effect is limited—local sheriff agreements remain in place and federal enforcement authority is unchanged—the action contributes to a broader pattern of state-level resistance that is reshaping the federal-state power balance in immigration policy.
The empirical evidence suggests that such policies do not increase crime and may enhance community trust in law enforcement. Federal courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of states declining to participate in federal immigration enforcement while blocking administration attempts to coerce compliance through funding cuts.
Virginia's actions, combined with similar moves in Maryland and ongoing legislative efforts in other states, indicate that immigration federalism is evolving from a unilateral federal prerogative toward a more contested space where states actively assert their authority over their own law enforcement resources. This development neither guarantees protection for immigrants from federal enforcement nor represents obstruction of legitimate federal authority, but rather reflects the constitutional design whereby federalism "is not designed to keep things calm" but rather "to keep power unsettled – so that authority cannot move smoothly, silently or all at once"Federal power meets local resistance in Minneapolis – a case study in how federalism staves off authoritarianism - The Conversationtheconversation .