The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Virginia last week challenging two new state laws that restrict how federal immigration agents operate, including bans on facial coverings during enforcement and limits on local cooperation with ICE. The suit names Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones and Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano as defendants and invokes the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The laws are set to take effect July 1. The DOJ says it will move quickly to seek an injunction in federal district court to block them before that date arrives.
DOJ Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, who heads the Civil Division, laid out the administration's case in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. His message was blunt: Virginia is trying to become the next sanctuary jurisdiction, and the federal government will not allow it.
"We are suing Virginia to prevent Virginia from becoming the next sanctuary jurisdiction, just like California."
The two bills passed during Virginia's most recent legislative session target federal immigration enforcement from two directions. The first restricts law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings during operations and requires federal agents to display identification badges. The second limits cooperation agreements between local law enforcement agencies, including sheriffs, and ICE.
Both carry criminal penalties, though the specific charges and sentences have not been detailed publicly. Shumate warned that those penalties put federal agents at risk not only of prosecution but also of doxing and harassment.
The cooperation agreements at stake are known as 287(g) agreements, which allow local law enforcement to work directly with ICE on immigration enforcement. AP News reported that Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, had already directed state agencies in February to end 287(g) agreements with ICE, before the legislature even finished passing the laws now under challenge.
That sequence matters. The governor moved administratively first. Then the legislature codified the restrictions into law with criminal teeth. The result is a two-track effort to wall off Virginia's local agencies from federal immigration enforcement.
Shumate's legal theory is straightforward and already tested. He told Fox News Digital that the Constitution does not permit states to regulate or dictate how the federal government performs its duties, especially when it comes to law enforcement.
"Under the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause in particular, the states do not get to regulate or discriminate against the federal government. That's exactly what Virginia has done. They have attempted to regulate how the federal goes about its business. They do not have the authority to do that under the constitution."
The DOJ is not making this argument for the first time. Shumate pointed to a nearly identical lawsuit the department brought against California earlier this year. A federal appeals court handed the Trump administration a legal victory in April, blocking California from requiring federal immigration agents to display identification during operations.
That precedent gives the DOJ a strong hand in Virginia. The legal framework is the same. The state laws are similar. And the constitutional principle, federal supremacy over state attempts to micromanage federal agents, has already been affirmed by a federal court.
The DOJ's willingness to confront Democrat-led state governments on constitutional grounds has become a defining feature of the current administration's posture.
The lawsuit lands in a state that has undergone a dramatic political shift. Virginia voted Republican in nearly every presidential election for decades before trending leftward over roughly the last twenty years. The election of Spanberger, a former CIA officer and congresswoman who ran as a moderate, continued that trajectory.
But the laws now under challenge are not moderate. Criminalizing the way federal agents dress during enforcement operations and severing local cooperation with ICE are policies drawn from the California playbook. Shumate made the comparison explicit, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom's own communications office seemed to agree. Diana Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom's chief deputy director of communications, offered a two-word response when asked about the DOJ's comparison: "Congratulations, Virginia."
That quip captures the dynamic. California has spent years building a legal wall between state and local agencies and federal immigration enforcement. Virginia's new laws follow the same template. The DOJ is treating them accordingly.
Virginia is not the only state in the DOJ's crosshairs. The administration has been filing lawsuits against Democratic-led jurisdictions at a pace that signals a coordinated strategy.
The Washington Free Beacon reported that the DOJ sued Illinois and Chicago in February, arguing that their sanctuary laws violate the Supremacy Clause by refusing to cooperate with ICE detainers and releasing individuals from custody instead of handing them to federal authorities. Attorney General Pam Bondi said at the time that leaders in Illinois and Chicago had "abused their power by putting the comfort of illegal aliens over the safety and welfare of their own citizens."
The DOJ has also taken aim at New Jersey. Breitbart reported that the department filed suit challenging state laws granting in-state tuition and financial aid to noncitizen residents, marking the ninth lawsuit the Trump administration has brought against states with Dream Act-style policies. That action stemmed from a Trump executive order directing the attorney general to identify and challenge state laws that favor noncitizens over American citizens.
The pattern is clear. States that pass laws designed to obstruct federal immigration enforcement or extend benefits to illegal immigrants are drawing federal lawsuits grounded in constitutional supremacy. The DOJ is not issuing warning letters. It is filing complaints.
The contrast with how the DOJ operated under the previous administration could not be sharper.
ICE has defended the practice of agents concealing their identities during operations, citing a spike in threats and assaults against agents' families. The agency tied that spike to what it described as left-wing rhetoric surrounding the Trump administration's immigration crackdown and anti-ICE protests.
Shumate's argument connects directly to that concern. Laws that force federal agents to display their names and faces during enforcement operations, and attach criminal penalties for noncompliance, create real risks for the agents and their families. When those agents are already facing elevated threats, the stakes are not abstract.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee in May, has also weighed in on the broader issue. In a statement reported by AP News, Blanche said law enforcement officers "risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties."
The Virginia laws, in the DOJ's telling, do exactly that, they create a legal mechanism for exposing agents' identities and then punishing them for protecting themselves.
The inclusion of Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano as a named defendant adds another dimension. Descano, described as a left-wing prosecutor who previously received backing from groups connected to George Soros, holds the kind of local office that could use the new Virginia laws to bring criminal charges against federal agents operating in his jurisdiction.
Naming him individually signals that the DOJ views the threat as more than theoretical. A local prosecutor with ideological motivation and statutory authority to charge federal agents is precisely the kind of enforcement risk the lawsuit aims to preempt.
The broader pattern of politically motivated legal actions against federal authority has become a recurring concern for the administration.
Shumate did not limit his remarks to Virginia. He issued a direct warning to every state legislature considering similar legislation.
"Any state that's considering passing this type of bill is on notice that we will file a lawsuit and we will ask for an injunction to block those laws from taking effect."
That warning carries weight now. The DOJ has the California precedent in its pocket. It has active lawsuits against multiple states. And it has demonstrated a willingness to move fast, filing for injunctions before laws take effect rather than waiting to litigate after the damage is done.
Virginia officials have not publicly responded to the lawsuit. The DOJ told Fox News Digital it had not heard back from state officials as of the time of the interview.
The willingness of Democratic officials to resist federal authority through state-level legal maneuvers has been a defining feature of the post-2024 political landscape.
The DOJ plans to file for an injunction in the Eastern District of Virginia before the July 1 effective date. If the court grants it, the two laws will be frozen before they can be enforced. If it does not, federal agents operating in Virginia could face criminal prosecution for wearing masks or failing to display identification during enforcement operations.
The California precedent strongly favors the DOJ's position. But each case turns on its own facts, and Virginia's laws may differ in ways that create new legal questions. The bill numbers, full statutory text, and specific criminal penalties have not been publicly detailed in the available reporting.
What is clear is the trajectory. A state that was reliably Republican for decades has passed laws that criminalize the way federal agents do their jobs. Its governor moved to sever local cooperation with ICE before the legislature even finished voting. And its attorney general and a Soros-backed local prosecutor now stand as named defendants in a federal lawsuit.
States that want to become the next California should expect to be treated like California. The DOJ has made that much plain.
