The Justice Department is threatening legal action against four Democratic-led states for denying undercover license plates to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, escalating the constitutional confrontation over immigration enforcement between the federal government and sanctuary jurisdictions. DOJ Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate warned governors in Maine, Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon on May 12 that their policies were running afoul of the Supremacy Clause by discriminating against federal law enforcement agencies.
At issue is whether these states are simply exercising discretion not to cooperate with civil immigration enforcement, or whether restricting access to confidential license plates actively interferes with the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law. The states have adopted varying approaches: Massachusetts officials say they will issue undercover plates for criminal investigations but not civil infractions, while Oregon and Maine appear to have implemented broader suspensions affecting all federal agencies.
What the Left Is Saying
"Massachusetts is not going to allow state resources to be used to help ICE operate in secret while they are violating people's rights and making us all less safe," a spokesman for Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey's office told Fox News Digital. "Any federal, state or local agency engaging in legitimate criminal law enforcement work can receive a confidential plate. We all know that's not what ICE is doing. This is an agency that can't and won't even tell us who they are arresting and why. We are not going to enable their tactics."
Massachusetts officials argue the policy applies equally to state and local agencies investigating civil matters, not just federal immigration enforcement. The commonwealth contends that non-confidential plates disclosed only that ICE owns the vehicle, not individual agent identities, making fears of "doxing" unfounded.
What the Right Is Saying
"Every one of these states is part of the union. It is assumed that when the federal government is enforcing federal law, the states are going to play ball," said Charles "Cully" Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He argued the states are playing a "dangerous game" by refusing to assist ICE agents carrying out lawful immigration enforcement.
ICE claimed in January 2026 that agents and their families have experienced an 8,000% increase in death threats against them. The agency has pointed to threats fueled by public disclosure of officer identities as justification for confidential plates.
What the Numbers Show
Four states are facing DOJ pre-litigation notices: Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington. Shumate's May 12 letters marked a formal escalation from informal demands. According to DOJ correspondence obtained by Fox News Digital, the department cited the Supremacy Clause as its primary constitutional basis for requiring states to issue standard and undercover registrations to federal agencies without restriction.
Oregon's DMV was specifically named in one letter as having "directly run afoul of the Supremacy Clause by discriminating against the federal government." The four governors have until a date specified in their individual letters to respond before DOJ proceeds with litigation, though specific deadlines were not disclosed publicly.
The Bottom Line
The dispute represents another front in the ongoing legal battles over immigration enforcement between the Trump administration and states that limit cooperation with federal authorities. Constitutional experts are divided on whether DOJ's Supremacy Clause argument is legally airtight. Heritage Foundation's Stimson acknowledged that while DOJ presents a "plausible" case, establishing actual conflict with specific federal law may prove challenging.
If lawsuits proceed, courts would need to determine whether withholding license plates constitutes impermissible interference with federal functions or simply reflects the states' discretion over their own administrative processes. The outcome could establish precedent for how far states can go in restricting cooperation with civil immigration enforcement without running afoul of constitutional supremacy principles.