U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; failure to communicate or cooperate.
Summary
HB2623 would create a new section of Virginia law providing that if the Commonwealth or a locality adopts a policy, ordinance, resolution, motion, rule, or regulation that interferes with law-enforcement, corrections, or jail officers communicating or cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), then the Commonwealth or locality waives sovereign immunity for injuries or damages suffered by victims of crimes committed by the affected person. The bill specifically includes policies that prevent officers from notifying ICE before releasing a person in the United States illegally from a state, local, or regional correctional facility.
In practical terms, the bill is aimed at so-called “sanctuary” policies or other restrictions on ICE notification and detainer cooperation. It would not itself create a new criminal offense or immigration enforcement mechanism, but instead would expose the Commonwealth or a locality to civil liability if a person who benefited from the lack of ICE communication later commits a crime and causes harm. The waiver applies only where the person in the United States illegally benefited from the government’s failure to communicate with or cooperate on an ICE detainer.
Impact
The bill would add a new civil-liability provision to Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia and would carve out an exception to sovereign immunity for the Commonwealth and localities in the specified circumstances. It would affect state and local governments, law-enforcement agencies, corrections officers, jail officers, and potentially victims seeking damages after crimes committed by persons who were not reported to ICE before release. The measure could also influence local jail-release and immigration-notification policies by creating legal risk for governments that limit cooperation with ICE.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available context suggests the bill is framed as a strong enforcement-oriented measure rather than a compromise proposal. Its purpose is to pressure state and local governments to maintain cooperation with ICE by attaching potential civil liability to noncooperation. Because there are no transcripts or vote records provided, there is no documented committee sentiment to report beyond the bill’s clear policy direction.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether Virginia and its localities should be able to limit cooperation with ICE without risking liability, versus whether victims of later crimes should have a civil remedy when a government policy allegedly prevented ICE notification or detention. Supporters would likely emphasize public safety, accountability, and detainer cooperation; opponents would likely argue that the bill targets local policy choices, may conflict with sovereign-immunity principles, and could pressure jails and law-enforcement agencies into immigration enforcement roles. The bill’s focus on waiving sovereign immunity makes the liability issue especially significant.