A federal judge has temporarily blocked Virginia from enforcing key provisions of a new law restricting cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, allowing existing partnerships with U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement to continue while the federal government’s legal challenge proceeds. For removal-defense practitioners in Virginia, the injunction significantly alters the legal landscape around police custody and detention risk.
What changed
Virginia’s law required existing 287(g) agreements to be rewritten by Sept. 1 to include a dozen conditions governing how federal immigration operations could be conducted around the state, with agreements not modified by that date treated as void and unenforceable. Senior U.S. District Court Judge Robert Payne in Richmond issued a preliminary injunction Monday, barring the commonwealth from applying the law against federal immigration officers, employees or agencies and from interfering with existing agreements under Section 287(g) of federal immigration law.
The US is likely to win the case because the provision substantially impairs existing contracts between the federal government and Virginia localities and violates the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, according to Payne’s order. However, Payne left one significant restriction in place, preventing localities and law enforcement agencies that have never participated in the 287(g) program from entering such agreements for the first time.
Why it matters
For clients in Virginia, the injunction means that existing 287(g) programs will continue unchanged during the litigation. These agreements allow ICE to authorize trained state and local officers to perform certain federal immigration enforcement duties. Practitioners must assume that officers in 287(g) jurisdictions remain deputized to conduct civil immigration arrests, which affects how you advise clients on police encounters, when to invoke rights, and detention risk in jurisdictions where local police work directly with ICE.
The court’s reliance on intergovernmental immunity and Supremacy Clause grounds—rather than narrower contract-law doctrines—signals that state attempts to opt out of federal immigration enforcement cooperation face structural constitutional barriers. This may limit the practical effect of similar state legislation in other jurisdictions. Additionally, because the judge allowed the blanket ban on new entries into 287(g) to remain, Virginia localities wishing to join the program for the first time still face a legal obstacle, at least until the case is resolved on the merits.
Way forward
-
Review jurisdictional status. Determine whether your client’s county or city currently operates under a 287(g) agreement. The injunction preserves all existing agreements, so local police cooperation with ICE remains operative.
-
Adjust police-encounter advice. In 287(g) jurisdictions, assume that officers who make an arrest have authority to inquire about immigration status and may hand a client to ICE. Counsel clients accordingly on when to invoke Miranda rights and when to decline consent searches.
-
Monitor case progression. The preliminary injunction remains in effect while the case proceeds to the merits. Bookmark the Virginia Mercury and monitor Virginia federal court dockets (https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/) for updates that may shift the legal landscape before final judgment.
-
Plan for sustained cooperation. Even if Virginia ultimately prevails at trial, the appellate timeline means 287(g) agreements will likely remain enforceable for months or years to come. Build this assumption into your removal-defense strategy for Virginia clients.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It is written by a software company, not a law firm. Consult a licensed immigration attorney for advice on your specific situation. Immigration policy changes frequently; verify all claims against the primary source and applicable law before filing or advising a client.