The Justice Department has issued formal warnings to four Democratic-led states for refusing to provide undercover license plates to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Officials in Maine, Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon could face federal lawsuits if they maintain policies that deny confidential vehicle registrations to ICE officers. The dispute centers on whether states are merely declining to assist federal immigration enforcement or actively obstructing it.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate sent letters on May 12 to the governors of all four states, arguing that their policies violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. This constitutional provision establishes that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws. The DOJ claims that by refusing to issue standard and undercover registrations to federal agencies while continuing to provide them to state and local law enforcement, these states are discriminating against the federal government.
Constitutional debate emerges over enforcement versus assistance
Legal experts are divided on whether the Justice Department’s constitutional argument will succeed in court. Charles Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described the states’ actions as a dangerous game that puts ICE agents at risk. However, he also questioned whether the DOJ’s Supremacy Clause reasoning is as straightforward as officials suggest.
Federal law preempts state law when the two conflict, rendering the state law without legal effect in those instances. Yet Stimson noted that in this case, there may not be a direct conflict between federal and state law. Instead, state officials are simply refusing to issue certain types of license plates. The challenge for the Justice Department is establishing that the states are doing more than declining to help. Officials would likely need to demonstrate that the plate restrictions actually conflict with a specific federal statute.
Tony Pham, former ICE director and current senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute, believes the federal government is on solid legal ground. He argues that when states admit to the legitimate safety and operational needs for confidential plates by issuing them to their own law enforcement agencies, then openly discriminate against federal officers by denying them the same protections, they create an unequal standard that undermines congressionally authorized law enforcement duties.
States draw distinction between civil and criminal enforcement
An official in the Massachusetts governor’s office stated that the commonwealth does issue undercover plates to federal agents, but only when they are investigating criminal offenses. Immigration enforcement typically involves civil infractions rather than criminal violations. The official added that state and local law enforcement are also barred from receiving undercover plates if they are investigating civil offenses, making the policy uniform across all agencies.
Massachusetts officials also disputed concerns about potential “doxing” of ICE officers mentioned in the Justice Department’s letters. They claim that non-confidential plates offered by the state to ICE only disclose that the agency owns the vehicle, not the name of the individual agent. A spokesman for the governor’s office stated that Massachusetts will not allow state resources to be used to help ICE operate in secret while the agency violates people’s rights. The spokesman emphasized that any federal, state or local agency engaging in legitimate criminal law enforcement work can receive a confidential plate.
- ICE reported an 8,000% increase in death threats against agents and their families in January 2026.
- Oregon and Maine appear to have issued broader suspensions of undercover plate issuance to federal agencies.
- Washington and Massachusetts maintain they issue confidential plates only for criminal investigations.
- The DOJ argues states are creating unequal standards that discriminate against federal operations.
Oregon and Maine have taken broader approaches to restricting undercover plates for federal agencies. The governor’s offices of Oregon, Maine and Washington did not respond to requests for comment when contacted by news outlets. Stimson explained that there is an underlying assumption in the constitutional system that states will cooperate with federal law enforcement by virtue of being part of the union and as implied under the separation of powers doctrine.
Safety concerns and political motivations questioned
Critics of the state policies argue that the restrictions are motivated more by opposition to current immigration enforcement policies than by legitimate concerns about civil versus criminal investigations. Stimson suggested that because these states oppose the current administration and its approach to immigration enforcement, they are playing a dangerous game that puts lives at risk, including both the people subject to enforcement actions and the agents themselves.
Rafael Mangual, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute who holds a law degree, questioned the distinction between civil and criminal enforcement drawn by the states. He noted that many individuals who would be subjected to civil immigration enforcement actions also pose real criminal threats in their communities. This reality is illustrated by numerous cases of serious offenses committed by those unlawfully present in the United States. Making it easier to track and identify law enforcement vehicles exposes federal agents to harassment similar to what occurred in jurisdictions like Minneapolis and Chicago, making everyone less safe.
Mangual emphasized that federal agencies such as ICE and CBP are enforcing immigration laws that have been on the books for decades and have been enforced by both Republican and Democratic administrations. The sudden refusal to provide standard law enforcement tools represents a departure from traditional cooperation between state and federal authorities.
Alternative legal perspectives emerge on plate authority
Not all legal experts view the case as a clear-cut constitutional violation. Mike Fox, a legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, described the dispute as not a slam dunk for either side. He noted that cases where states impose conditions on how federal law enforcement officers operate, such as attempted bans on masked federal agents in California, pretty clearly violate the Supremacy Clause. However, this situation is different because the states issue license plates as a state function.
Fox pointed out that states are not singling out ICE for special restrictions while providing plates to everyone else. Most federal law enforcement agencies, when not operating undercover, use standard U.S. government license plates. There is nothing barring ICE from using vehicles with federal license plates rather than state-issued confidential plates. This distinction could complicate the Justice Department’s argument that states are interfering with federal operations rather than simply choosing not to provide optional assistance.
The dispute represents the latest front in ongoing tensions between Democratic-led states and federal immigration enforcement. The outcome could have significant implications for the balance of power between federal and state authorities in law enforcement matters. As the confrontation moves toward potential litigation, courts will need to determine whether refusing to provide undercover plates constitutes impermissible obstruction of federal law or falls within states’ authority to manage their own administrative processes.