⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Virginia tries to limit masked policing and reshape local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. One new law generally bars on-duty officers, including federal officers, from concealing their faces and requires visible identification, with tactical and undercover exceptions. Another requires existing immigration-enforcement agreements to include state conditions by September first, or become void. Those conditions address how federal agents identify themselves and where they may operate. Section two-eighty-seven gee authorizes voluntary agreements allowing trained state and local officers to perform specified immigration functions under federal supervision. The United States sued, alleging unconstitutional state control of federal operations and interference with contracts. A district judge blocked the mask requirements and protected existing cooperation agreements through preliminary injunctions: temporary orders while the lawsuit continues. Virginia appealed both. Intergovernmental immunity limits state regulation of the federal government itself; it is not blanket immunity from state law for every federal employee. You will also hear dicta: comments in an opinion unnecessary to the decision, rather than a binding holding. Tillman Breckenridge, for Virginia, will argue that the state controls its localities and that the mask law does not unlawfully interfere with federal duties.

United States v. Virginia (No. 26-1874) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 27, 2026.