A federal judge has temporarily blocked Virginia from enforcing most of a new law that would have forced local law-enforcement agencies to modify or abandon existing immigration-enforcement agreements with the federal government, allowing those partnerships with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to continue as a constitutional fight between Richmond and Washington moves forward.

Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, sitting in Richmond in the Eastern District of Virginia, issued the preliminary injunction on Aug. 31. The order largely prevents the commonwealth from enforcing Virginia Code Section 15.2-1726.1 against existing federal immigration-enforcement arrangements, including agreements made under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under that federal program, ICE can train and authorize participating state or local personnel to perform specified immigration-enforcement functions under federal supervision.

The timing of the order was significant. Virginia’s legislation required law-enforcement agencies with qualifying agreements already in effect on July 1 to obtain modified agreements by Sept. 1 that complied with the state’s requirements. Agreements that were not changed by that deadline would have been considered void and unenforceable under state law. The injunction effectively stopped that deadline from terminating existing partnerships while the court considers the federal government’s claims.

The law emerged from Senate Bill 783 and its House counterpart, HB 1441, approved during Virginia’s 2026 legislative session. The measures established conditions governing federal immigration-enforcement agreements involving Virginia law-enforcement agencies and correctional institutions. The legislation reflected an effort by the state’s Democratic-controlled government to establish tighter limits on how Virginia personnel and resources could be used for federal civil immigration enforcement.

Among the conditions described in the legislation and subsequent court dispute were requirements affecting federal officers’ operations, information sharing and enforcement practices. Reporting on the case has also highlighted restrictions involving identification of participating federal officers, enforcement activity in certain locations, surveillance practices and warrant requirements in specified circumstances. The Justice Department argued that the overall framework went beyond regulating Virginia agencies and improperly dictated how federal officers could carry out federal responsibilities.

The federal government sued Virginia in June, challenging both the restrictions on immigration-enforcement cooperation and a separate Virginia measure governing identification and face coverings for law-enforcement personnel. In its complaint, the Justice Department argued that Virginia was attempting to regulate federal operations in violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The government also contended that the immigration-agreement law improperly disrupted contracts already in place between ICE and Virginia jurisdictions.

Payne’s preliminary injunction does not constitute a final ruling that the Virginia statute is unconstitutional. At the preliminary stage, however, the judge found the United States sufficiently likely to prevail on key arguments to justify maintaining existing arrangements while the litigation continues. According to reporting on the ruling, Payne concluded that the new requirements substantially impaired existing agreements and that the federal government had shown a likelihood of success on its challenge under the Constitution’s Contract Clause. He also found substantial support for the federal government’s Supremacy Clause argument that Virginia’s requirements directly regulated federal law-enforcement conduct.

The order is narrower than a complete suspension of Virginia’s law. Payne preserved the provision preventing localities or law-enforcement agencies that had not previously entered Section 287(g) agreements from joining the program for the first time. That distinction leaves Virginia with some ability to prevent an expansion of local participation even as agencies with pre-existing relationships remain able to continue them for now.

The result creates a divided legal landscape inside the state. Jurisdictions already participating in the federal program are protected from the Sept. 1 modification requirement under the injunction, while nonparticipating jurisdictions remain subject to the state prohibition on becoming first-time participants. The practical significance will vary by locality because sheriffs, police departments and correctional agencies have taken different approaches to cooperation with ICE.

Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said after the ruling that his office strongly disagreed with the court’s decision and intended to seek a stay while pursuing an appeal. Jones has argued that the General Assembly was exercising its authority over Virginia local governments and their contracting powers rather than directly regulating ICE. The state’s position is that Virginia can establish conditions governing how its political subdivisions use local personnel and resources, particularly when lawmakers believe federal immigration work could divert resources from traditional state and local public-safety functions.

The federal government takes the opposite view. Its lawsuit says Congress expressly created mechanisms allowing federal authorities to enter cooperative immigration-enforcement agreements with states and localities, and that Virginia cannot impose conditions that interfere with those federal arrangements or discriminate against federal operations. The Justice Department said when it filed the case that the challenged legislation threatened established federal-state law-enforcement cooperation and intruded into areas governed by federal law.

The dispute is also part of a broader shift in Virginia immigration policy under Gov. Abigail Spanberger. Earlier in 2026, Spanberger moved to end state-level participation in certain ICE cooperation agreements and reversed immigration policies adopted under her predecessor. Those executive actions, however, did not by themselves eliminate independently negotiated agreements between ICE and local agencies, making legislation governing local partnerships a separate and consequential part of the state’s immigration agenda.

The litigation now turns to whether the federal government can convert its preliminary victory into a final judgment. Payne’s four-page injunction preserved the status quo for existing 287(g) partnerships and indicated that fuller legal reasoning would follow as the case proceeds. The court also directed that the ruling be distributed to prosecutors across Virginia and that the parties contact the court regarding further proceedings.

Until another court modifies the injunction or Payne issues a different order, existing Virginia local-ICE agreements covered by the ruling can remain in place despite the state’s Sept. 1 deadline. The ultimate decision will determine not only whether Virginia can impose its chosen conditions on those partnerships but also how far states may go in controlling local participation in a federal immigration system created by Congress.