Justice Department sues Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington over undercover license plates for ICE

Today’s Focus

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday announced lawsuits against Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, accusing the four Democratic-led states of unlawfully refusing to issue undercover license plates to federal immigration agents. The suits were filed Wednesday in U.S. district courts in each state, according to PBS NewsHour.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the states issue confidential plates to their own police agencies but withhold them from components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Blanche said the policies are “discriminatory and obstructionist” and endanger federal officers, according to a DOJ statement cited by PBS NewsHour.

The Guardian reported that assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate had warned the four states earlier in May that litigation would follow if they did not change their policies. Officials in Maine and Massachusetts had previously said they did not want state-issued resources used to support covert civil immigration arrests, citing concerns about ICE tactics during the Trump administration’s expanded enforcement push.

The DOJ’s filings rely on two constitutional theories. First, the suits argue that immigration is an exclusive federal power, so states cannot condition cooperation in a way that obstructs enforcement. Second, the department invokes the Supremacy Clause, arguing states cannot regulate or discriminate against federal law enforcement operating within their borders.

The cases are the latest clash between the White House and Democratic governors over immigration enforcement. A federal appeals court recently blocked a separate California law that would have required federal agents to wear visible identification during operations, PBS NewsHour noted.

None of the four state attorneys general had filed formal responses at the time of the DOJ announcement.

The Debate

Supporters argue

Blanche framed the suits as a safety measure for federal officers. He said in the DOJ statement that the state policies “undermine federal immigration enforcement, allow dangerous criminals to escape justice, and terrorize American communities,” as quoted by PBS NewsHour.

Administration officials argue the constitutional case is straightforward. The Justice Department contends in its filings, reported by The Guardian, that the four states issue confidential plates to state and local police but single out DHS components for refusal, which it says amounts to unlawful discrimination against the federal government.

Supporters also emphasize officer safety. DOJ said the policies expose ICE agents to “harassment, tracking and assaults” during arrests, according to The Guardian’s summary of the complaints. Allies of the administration note that undercover plates are standard tools for narcotics, fugitive and human-trafficking units across the country, and argue ICE should not be carved out for different treatment based on the political controversy surrounding immigration enforcement.

Conservative legal commentators have long argued that the Supremacy Clause forecloses state efforts to obstruct federal officers in the performance of their duties.

Critics argue

State officials counter that they are not blocking federal enforcement; they are declining to provide state-issued cover for it. Maine and Massachusetts officials previously said they did not want state vehicle registries used to facilitate covert civil immigration arrests, citing aggressive ICE tactics, The Guardian reported.

Civil liberties groups argue that masked, plainclothes agents in unmarked cars have heightened public fear in immigrant communities and complicated bystander efforts to distinguish federal officers from impersonators. They point to the same concerns that motivated the California identification law referenced by PBS NewsHour.

Democratic state officials also reject the discrimination framing. They argue that civil immigration enforcement is legally distinct from criminal policing, and that states have always retained discretion over how their own administrative systems, including motor vehicle records, are used. Opponents of the lawsuits contend the Tenth Amendment and anti-commandeering doctrine, recognized by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States (1997), allow states to decline affirmative assistance to federal programs.

What the experts say

Anti-commandeering case law is the central legal question. In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the federal government cannot compel state officers to administer a federal regulatory program, a ruling the Brennan Center for Justice has cited as a limit on federal demands for state cooperation in immigration enforcement.

The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, has documented that ICE arrests away from jails and courts rose sharply during the Trump administration’s second term, increasing reliance on at-large operations that depend on covert vehicles. Independent researchers note this is what makes the plate question consequential rather than symbolic.

Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown Law professor who writes the One First newsletter on the federal courts, has written that intergovernmental immunity cases generally turn on whether a state is regulating the federal government itself or simply choosing not to assist it, a distinction that will likely drive the rulings here.

The Congressional Research Service has noted that lower courts have split in recent years on how far Printz extends to passive state non-cooperation.

By the Numbers

4: states sued by the Justice Department, all with Democratic governors, according to PBS NewsHour.
2: constitutional theories cited in the complaints, the federal immigration power and the Supremacy Clause, per PBS NewsHour.
5-4: Supreme Court vote in Printz v. United States (1997), the leading anti-commandeering precedent, per the Court’s opinion.
1996: year ICE’s predecessor agencies began using confidential plates routinely in undercover work, according to DHS Office of Inspector General reports.
May 2026: month assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate sent warning letters to the four states, according to The Guardian.
1: recent federal appeals court ruling blocking California’s law requiring federal agents to wear ID, per PBS NewsHour.