‘BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL’: New Lawsuit Exposes Virginia’s Neo-Confederate Immigration Policies

Democrats of 2026 bear an uncanny resemblance to Democrats of 1861 when it comes to seeking to nullify federal law.

In 1861, Democrats led efforts to “secede” from the Union to oppose Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who opposed the expansion of slavery into the Northern Territories, an expansion expressly forbidden by Congress in the Missouri Compromise. In 2026, Democrats are again trying to nullify federal law to prevent another Republican from enforcing immigration laws duly enacted by Congress.

This week, the Justice Department filed an important lawsuit against Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and the state’s infamous attorney general, Jay Jones. The lawsuit explains how two laws that Spanberger signed directly conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

In an echo of the nullification battles preceding the Confederacy, Virginia had sought to dictate exactly how the federal government would enforce the law.

The Virginia Lawsuit

The lawsuit describes Virginia’s laws as “blatantly unconstitutional” because they violate “the principles of intergovernmental immunity that flow from the Supremacy Clause.”

One law seeks to dictate exactly what federal immigration officers wear—or do not wear, in the case of face coverings. The other law seeks to void all federal immigration contracts with state and local law enforcement, unless the federal government meets certain requirements.

In both cases, Virginia is dictating how the federal government enforces immigration law, a direct inversion of the Constitution. The lawsuit lays out five different ways these laws violate the supremacy clause, and asks the court to block their enforcement.

The “moderate” Democrat Abigail Spanberger is far from alone, however. The lawsuit notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently struck down a California law requiring federal immigration officials to display identification.

How Did We Get Here?

President Joe Biden’s policies enabled millions of illegal aliens to enter the country, and Donald Trump won reelection in large part due to this immigration crisis. Yet Democrats have demonized Trump’s efforts to deport some of the illegal aliens who entered in the Biden years, and the Department of Homeland Security has reported that federal agents face increased threats from this demonization.

Between Jan. 20 and Dec. 31, 2025, Homeland Security officials reported 275 assaults against agents compared with 19 during the same period in 2024, for an increase of 1,347%. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents reportedly experienced 66 vehicular attacks in that same period, a 3,200% increase from the two in 2024.

In response to these threats, ICE agents have taken to wearing masks to protect their identities, and Democrats have continued to ratchet up the rhetoric.

The governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the gestapo, Adolf Hitler’s secret police. Others have echoed that rhetoric, describing Trump’s efforts as authoritarian or “fascist.”

After ICE surged in Minneapolis, agitators began swarming ICE agents. Two anti-ICE agitators lost their lives at the hands of immigration enforcement, emboldening activists further.

On Jan. 18, anti-ICE agitators even invaded a church during a service. At one point, they chanted, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!” The agitators face federal charges, but Democrats and a local prosecutor have defended many of them, claiming they had a right to protest.

Neo-Confederate Rhetoric

Comparing ICE to the gestapo is bad enough, but many Democrat politicians have taken this opposition a step further.

Walz, the Democrat governor of Minnesota, threatened to deploy his state’s National Guard troops against federal agents, in what would have been a direct military confrontation against the federal government.

When a reporter asked about the prospect of state troops facing federal agents, Walz gave this response: “We’ve never been at war with our federal government.” His statement suggested he meant “we’ve never been at war” with the administration before.

Of course, Walz was far from alone in opposing immigration law. Governors like JB Pritzker of Illinois, or Gavin Newsom of California, or Tina Kotek of Oregon, openly say that immigration law should not be enforced in their jurisdictions.

Even Virginia’s so-called moderate governor has joined this neo-Confederate effort to oppose the enforcement of immigration law.

While Virginia’s nullification laws, like those of California, are not likely to survive in court, it is quite revealing how far Democrats are willing to go.

Trump won reelection in 2024 in part because Biden opened the border. Now, Democrats are engaging in the same nullification tactics they did before the Civil War—just to stop Trump from deporting a fraction of the Biden-era illegals.

I urge the American people not to buy the Democrats’ rhetoric. They’re no longer getting their way, and they’re throwing a tantrum. Unfortunately, this kind of tantrum can have serious consequences.