SB 783 would add § 15.2-1726.1 to the Code of Virginia, prohibiting state and local law enforcement from maintaining or entering 287(g) agreements and barring officers from assisting federal immigration enforcement except pursuant to a valid judicial warrant, judicial subpoena, or judicial detainer. It passed the Senate 21–19.
Federal Preemption. The bill conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), which prohibits state or local entities from restricting the sharing of immigration-status information with federal authorities. The circuit courts are split on § 1373's scope, but the current federal administration is aggressively enforcing it through executive orders, grant conditions, and threatened DOJ actions. A Virginia chief who complies with SB 783 risks violating § 1373, losing Byrne-JAG funding, and facing federal investigation. A chief who cooperates with ICE risks liability under the new state statute. There is no clear path to dual compliance.
Judicial Warrant Gap. The bill's exception for "judicial" warrants, subpoenas, and detainers does not account for the documents ICE actually uses. Forms I-200 and I-205 are administrative warrants signed by immigration officers—not judges—and would not qualify. "Judicial detainer" has no established meaning in Virginia law. Officers will face split-second decisions on document sufficiency with career-ending consequences either way, and the bill provides no definitions or operational guidance.
Floor Amendments. Proposed amendments compound these concerns. Senator Aird's amendment would bar ICE from using ALPRs, cell-site simulators, and drones—the same technology Virginia agencies use daily for violent crime cases—raising questions about state authority to restrict federal technology use. Senator Perry's amendment requiring state prosecution of ICE agent-involved shootings raises Supremacy Clause and federal officer removal concerns under 28 U.S.C. § 1442.
The VACP and VACLEA do not oppose the bill's policy objectives. The concern is that SB 783 places officers between conflicting state and federal mandates without workable guidance for lawful compliance.
SB 783 would add § 15.2-1726.1 to the Code of Virginia, prohibiting state and local law enforcement from maintaining or entering 287(g) agreements and barring officers from assisting federal immigration enforcement except pursuant to a valid judicial warrant, judicial subpoena, or judicial detainer. It passed the Senate 21–19. Federal Preemption. The bill conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), which prohibits state or local entities from restricting the sharing of immigration-status information with federal authorities. The circuit courts are split on § 1373's scope, but the current federal administration is aggressively enforcing it through executive orders, grant conditions, and threatened DOJ actions. A Virginia chief who complies with SB 783 risks violating § 1373, losing Byrne-JAG funding, and facing federal investigation. A chief who cooperates with ICE risks liability under the new state statute. There is no clear path to dual compliance. Judicial Warrant Gap. The bill's exception for "judicial" warrants, subpoenas, and detainers does not account for the documents ICE actually uses. Forms I-200 and I-205 are administrative warrants signed by immigration officers—not judges—and would not qualify. "Judicial detainer" has no established meaning in Virginia law. Officers will face split-second decisions on document sufficiency with career-ending consequences either way, and the bill provides no definitions or operational guidance. Floor Amendments. Proposed amendments compound these concerns. Senator Aird's amendment would bar ICE from using ALPRs, cell-site simulators, and drones—the same technology Virginia agencies use daily for violent crime cases—raising questions about state authority to restrict federal technology use. Senator Perry's amendment requiring state prosecution of ICE agent-involved shootings raises Supremacy Clause and federal officer removal concerns under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. The VACP and VACLEA do not oppose the bill's policy objectives. The concern is that SB 783 places officers between conflicting state and federal mandates without workable guidance for lawful compliance.