Purpose:‍ ‍On Jan. 17, 2026, shortly after taking office, Gov. Abigail Spanberger rescinded a previous order from former governor Glenn Youngkin that required state agencies to assist federal immigration enforcement.

The earlier policy enacted by former Governor Youngkin had encouraged Virginia agencies like the Virginia State Police and the Department of Corrections to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through the 287(g) program.

Spanberger’s directive ended those agreements and ordered state law-enforcement agencies to formally terminate them.

In Other Words: The order separates Virginia’s state police and agencies from ICE operations, meaning state officers will no longer assist federal immigration agents, though federal authorities can still enforce immigration law on their own.

Why It’s Bad:‍ ‍This short-sighted posturing by Governor Spanberger has made it harder for federal authorities to identify and remove individuals who are in the country illegally and have committed crimes, including violent members of MS-13 who have taken hold in Virginia. Cooperation between state and federal law enforcement not only improves public safety by allowing agencies to share information and resources, but also ensures that focus remains on the most violent criminals that are here illegally. In other words, ending these agreements decreases efficiency and places a greater burden on federal agents that rely on coordination with local law enforcement when dealing with serious offenders.

Current Status:‍ ‍Governor Spanberger has shown no willingness to reverse her directive or provide assistance to federal law enforcement.

Purpose:‍ ‍This bill regulates how Virginia police departments can work with federal immigration enforcement by prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from assisting lawful federal immigration enforcement (i.e. ICE operations) unless presented with a judicial warrant or subpoena, and sets required provisions for any federal agreements.

In Other Words:‍ ‍Democrats would rather posture to earn social validation points with their voters by impeding lawful federal law enforcement operations than deal with removing criminals from our communities who are in the country illegally.

Why It’s Bad:‍ This bill will continue to make it more difficult for local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Adding restrictions and judicial review requirements will further slow investigations and ultimately create extra administrative work for police departments and federal agencies. The bill also discourages cooperation that helps identify violent criminals who pose public-safety risks.

Current Status:‍ ‍SB783 has passed the Senate but still needs approval from the House and the governor before becoming law.

Purpose:‍ ‍This bill would eliminate mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain crimes in Virginia. Instead of requiring judges to give a fixed minimum jail or prison term, the bill would allow judges to decide the sentence based on the circumstances of each case. The goal is to give courts more flexibility rather than using “one-size-fits-all” sentencing rules.

In Other Words:‍ ‍HB863 would remove certain mandatory minimum sentences that not only act as a deterrence to crime, but also ensure that punishment is prescribed equally.

Why It’s Bad:‍ Eliminating mandatory minimum sentences could lead to lighter punishments for serious crimes. Mandatory minimums help ensure consistent, equal consequences and act as a deterrent for violent offenses. Without them, sentencing could vary widely depending on the judge, which may lead to unfair or inconsistent outcomes as seen in other Democrat-controlled states that have removed them.

Current Status:‍ ‍HB863 did not move forward this year. It was continued in committee, meaning it is no longer being considered during the 2026 session and did not become law. Likely to be re-introduced in the 2027 session.

Purpose:‍ ‍This bill updates parts of the Virginia criminal code to match the different degrees of robbery that were created in earlier legislation. The bill clarifies how robbery offenses are defined and how they affect sentencing and other criminal laws.

Key changes proposed:

• Adjusts how different degrees of robbery are classified in other criminal statutes.

• Limits the definition of “acts of violence” to the two most serious robbery degrees.

• Updates sentencing guidelines and scoring for robbery convictions.

• Changes how the “three-strikes” law applies, focusing it on the more serious robbery offenses.

• Allows people convicted of lower-degree robbery offenses to qualify for some things like enhanced sentence credits or conditional release in certain situations.

In Other Words:‍ ‍HB244 doesn’t create a new robbery crime; it updates Virginia law so that other statutes and sentencing rules reflect the different levels of robbery already in the legal code while minimizing punishment for lower-degree robbery offenses.

Why It’s Bad:‍ If not addressed properly, revising robbery laws to allow lighter treatment for lower-degree robbery offenses could reduce accountability for serious crimes. Even at lower levels, robbery still involves threatening or taking property from another person and should carry adequate penalties to deter crime.

Current Status:‍ ‍HB244 has passed the House but is still being considered in the Senate committee, so it has not become law yet.

Purpose:‍ ‍HB1277 deals with bail decisions in very serious criminal cases, especially aggravated murder. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption against granting bail for certain serious offenses. This means courts would normally deny bail unless the defendant can show strong reasons why they should be released before trial.

Key details

• Establishes a presumption against bail for specific serious crimes listed in the bill.

• Judges or magistrates must consider certain factors when deciding whether the defendant has rebutted the presumption and can safely be released.

• Updates parts of Virginia’s criminal procedure law related to aggravated murder and bail hearings

In Other Words:‍ ‍HB1277 would make it harder for people charged with very serious crimes like aggravated murder to get bail.

Why It’s Good:‍ It helps protect public safety by making it harder for people accused of very serious crimes, such as aggravated murder, to be released before trial. Individuals charged with the most violent offenses may pose a greater risk to the community or could attempt to flee. Creating a presumption against bail ensures judges carefully consider the potential danger before allowing release. This policy would have prioritized the safety of victims, witnesses, and the public while still allowing courts to grant bail in exceptional cases.

Current Status:‍ ‍HB1277 was stopped in committee by House Democrats.

Purpose:‍ ‍HB1314 would create a state law allowing people to sue government officials, including law enforcement, who violate their constitutional or legal rights while acting in their official role (“under color of law”). The bill would also allow victims to seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, court orders, and attorney’s fees if they win the case.

This bill would:

• Create a civil cause of action for violations of rights protected by the U.S. Constitution or Virginia law.

• Allow lawsuits against government employees, including law enforcement, and their supervisors if the supervisor oversaw or directed the conduct.

• Allow courts to award damages, equitable relief, and attorney fees to the person whose rights were violated.

• Allow presumptive victims up to four years to file the lawsuit after the alleged violation.

In Other Words:‍ ‍HB1314 would allow people to sue government officials, including law enforcement, individually in civil court for alleged violations of their rights.

Why It’s Bad:‍ It would expose government employees, including police officers, to a large number of lawsuits while they are performing their duties. It could make officials hesitant to take necessary actions in difficult situations for fear of personal legal liability. The bill would also increase legal costs for local governments and taxpayers if more lawsuits are filed. Existing legal protections and accountability systems already address misconduct without creating additional grounds for litigation.

It’s also likely that fewer individuals will sign up to become law enforcement officers or remain on the force if there is an ever present risk of losing personal assets (their savings, their vehicles, their home) through civil litigation. In other words, there will be fewer police officers to address criminal activity in our communities.

Current Status:‍ ‍Continued to the next session.

Purpose:‍ ‍Establishes collective bargaining for public employees.

In Other Words: It would unionize public employees in all positions at the state and local levels.

Why It’s Bad: It would be a decision made by an unelected bureaucrat in Richmond that would:

• Lead to excessive waste and bloat;

• Bankrupt local governments;

• Bankrupt local school districts;

• Increase public school class sizes;

• Shift funding away from police departments, fire departments, and EMTs;

• Pull maintenance funding away from critical infrastructure including roads, bridges and water utilities;

• Destroy the democratization of state and local governments;

• Drive up property taxes on working families;

• Become the single largest tax increase in Virginia history;

• NOT deliver better services to the taxpayer.

Current Status:‍ ‍Moving forward through their respective chambers and committees. Facing opposition from local governments.