A federal judge ruled Monday that Virginia cannot void existing agreements between its localities and federal immigration authorities.
Judge Robert Payne of the federal district court granted a partial preliminary injunction against Virginia’s new law, Va. Code §15.2-1726.1, which targeted the 287(g) program. That program, established under the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows ICE to train local officers to carry out immigration enforcement functions under direct federal supervision. Several Virginia localities had already signed 287(g) agreements before the law passed. The new statute would have forced them to abandon those commitments.
The Department of Justice sued and sought a preliminary injunction. Payne granted it in part, finding the federal government likely to prevail on two separate constitutional grounds.
As originally reported, the first ground is the Contracts Clause, a constitutional provision rarely invoked but very much still in force. States are prohibited from passing laws that substantially impair existing contractual obligations without a compelling and reasonable justification. Payne found Virginia’s law does precisely that to agreements already in place between its localities and the federal government, and that the state offered no public purpose strong enough to justify the interference.
The second ground is intergovernmental immunity under the Supremacy Clause. Payne concluded the statute directly regulates how federal officers carry out federal immigration law. States hold broad authority over their own agencies and personnel. They hold none over the conduct of federal agents performing federal duties. The injunction bars Virginia from enforcing the law against federal officers, employees, or agencies entirely.
The ruling did not go entirely in the federal government’s favor. Payne left half the statute intact. Virginia localities that never entered a 287(g) agreement are still barred from joining one going forward. The judge framed that as preserving the status quo while the case continues, with a more detailed opinion to follow.
That split reflects a real constitutional boundary. A state has the authority to decide whether its local governments participate in voluntary federal programs. A new political majority in Richmond can set new policy for the future. What a state cannot do is reach back and cancel commitments its localities already made, because those are contracts the state was never a party to. Setting future policy is federalism. Nullifying existing agreements is something else entirely.
The broader effort by Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger and the state’s Democratic legislative majority to limit the reach of border czar Tom Homan and ICE remains legally constrained at the federal level. No state can obstruct federal immigration enforcement as a matter of constitutional law, and Monday’s ruling makes that boundary considerably clearer.