The Department of Justice announced on Thursday that it filed lawsuits against four Democrat-led states over their refusal to issue undercover license plates to ICE agents.

DOJ Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate previously issued an ultimatum to Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington, giving them until May 22 to provide immigration enforcement officers with undercover plates for their vehicles. Justice Department officials argue the states’ refusal unlawfully discriminates against federal law enforcement and violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

These lawsuits escalate a months-long standoff between the Justice Department and Democrat-led states over immigration enforcement. The cases could test the limits of the Supremacy Clause as the DOJ seeks to assert legal authority over state motor vehicle departments, while the states themselves maintain that they are not required to assist with civil immigration enforcement.

«This Department of Justice will exercise any and all lawful authorities to support the brave men and women of law enforcement,» Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said. «Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe and must be able to carry out their duties effectively. By denying undercover license plates to DHS components, including ICE, while issuing them to their own state agencies, these governors are pursuing discriminatory and obstructionist policies against federal law enforcement.»

DOJ PUTS BLUE STATES ON NOTICE AS ICE FIGHT BARRELS TOWARD NEXT CONSTITUTIONAL SHOWDOWN

An official in the Massachusetts governor’s office previously told Fox News Digital that the commonwealth does issue undercover plates to federal agents, but only if they are investigating criminal offenses. It refuses to do so in cases where civil infractions are being investigated, which covers most immigration cases.

«In Massachusetts, we support law enforcement doing legitimate criminal investigative work, and local, state and federal agencies doing that work can request confidential plates,» Gov. Maura Healey said in a statement flagged for Fox News Digital by her staff. «But that’s not what we are seeing from ICE and its unconstitutional tactics.»

Oregon, meanwhile, has gone a step further by placing a general moratorium on issuing undercover plates to federal agents, while Maine and Washington, like Massachusetts, are declining to provide plates for civil investigations.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey takes questions from reporters during a news conference in Boston on Jan. 31, 2024. She nominated an appeals court judge and former romantic partner to an open seat on the state’s highest court. (Stuart Cahill/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald)

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES AGAINST DHS ON WARRANTLESS IMMIGRATION ARRESTS IN OREGON 

«We look forward to defending this lawsuit,» Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement his office shared with Fox News Digital. «We take public safety seriously, and work with federal partners to voluntarily provide hundreds of undercover plates every year for criminal investigations. Judges across the country have found that the Department of Homeland Security’s tactics in conducting civil immigration enforcement routinely violate the Constitution.»

«That is unacceptable,» he added. 

A spokesman for the Oregon governor’s office told Fox News Digital that Gov. Tina Kotek is waiting for the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles to conduct a review of its undercover plate policy and that she expects the agency to «communicate next steps.»

Law enforcement officers stand guard as protesters demonstrate outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on March 1, 2026, opposing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. (Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images)

ANTI-ICE LAW SET TO TAKE EFFECT IN MAINE AS GOVERNOR FACES INCREASED CRITICISM FOR ALLOWING IT AMID SENATE RUN

The Maine governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Thursday.

The lawsuits filed by the DOJ cite the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which establishes federal law as supreme over conflicting state laws, arguing that it can be used to make the four Democratic states issue undercover license plates to ICE agents. 

«The United States has sovereign authority to manage federal law enforcement activities and, under the Supremacy Clause, need not cede that authority to Maine (or any state) by abiding by its dangerous policy which jeopardizes federal law enforcement operations and the officers who carry them out,» the lawsuit reads.

JONATHAN TURLEY: WHY BLUE STATES’ NEW ANTI-ICE LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIRTUE SIGNALING

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche criticized reporters for asking questions about a viral story from The Atlantic alleging FBI Director Kash Patel has exhibited ‘erratic behavior’ tied to frequent intoxication, during a press conference on April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

«Under the Supremacy Clause, States do not have the power to dictate how the Federal Government executes its constitutional powers within their borders,» it continued.

Conservative legal experts previously told Fox News Digital that they believe the DOJ is fighting an uphill battle in trying to compel states to issue specific license plates by leveraging the Supremacy Clause.

«Federal law preempts state law when state law conflicts with a supreme federal law. And when it does, the state law is preempted, meaning that the state law cannot be given legal effect in those instances of conflict,» Charles «Cully» Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. «There is no law in my mind that is conflicting with federal law. You simply have state actors refusing to issue these types of license plates.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stimson did add that there is an underlying assumption that, by virtue of being in the union and as implied under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the four Democratic states should cooperate with the federal government to enforce laws.

The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Thursday.

Panamá avanza en la definición del modelo institucional que acompañará el desarrollo del tren Panamá-David-Frontera, un proyecto que aún se encuentra en fase de estudios y estructuración financiera, pero que ya obliga al Gobierno a analizar cómo será regulado, administrado y supervisado uno de los mayores proyectos de infraestructura planteados para el país en las próximas décadas.

La Secretaría Nacional del Ferrocarril informó que sostuvo jornadas de trabajo técnico con especialistas de Crossrail International, Grant Thornton, el Gobierno del Reino Unido y asesores internacionales para evaluar experiencias aplicadas en grandes proyectos ferroviarios y estudiar qué mecanismos podrían adaptarse al futuro Corredor Logístico Ferroviario de Panamá.

Según la entidad, durante las sesiones se revisaron modelos de gobernanza, regulación, diseño institucional y alternativas para garantizar la continuidad operativa del sistema, tomando como referencia experiencias desarrolladas en otros países.

El objetivo es definir la estructura que permitirá administrar y supervisar una infraestructura ferroviaria que busca conectar la ciudad de Panamá con la frontera de Costa Rica y transformar el sistema logístico nacio

La participación de Crossrail International resulta relevante debido a que la organización nació a partir de la experiencia acumulada durante la construcción de Crossrail, actualmente conocida como la Línea Elizabeth de Londres, considerada una de las obras ferroviarias urbanas más complejas de Europa.

La firma se dedica a asesorar gobiernos y operadores ferroviarios en la planificación, gestión y desarrollo de sistemas de transporte masivo alrededor del mundo.

Grant Thornton, por su parte, es una firma global de consultoría y auditoría con experiencia en estructuración financiera de proyectos de infraestructura, gobernanza corporativa y asociaciones público-privadas. La empresa ha participado en iniciativas vinculadas al transporte, energía e infraestructura estratégica en diversos mercados.

Las reuniones ocurren en momentos en que el proyecto ferroviario panameño se acerca a una etapa clave. El secretario ejecutivo de la Secretaría Nacional del Ferrocarril, Henry Faarup, informó recientemente que los principales estudios de ingeniería y factibilidad estarán listos durante junio, permitiendo definir con mayor precisión la viabilidad técnica, económica y operativa de la iniciativa.

Actualmente se desarrollan análisis de demanda, impacto ambiental, ingeniería conceptual y evaluación financiera liderados por firmas internacionales como AECOM, Renfe, KPMG y WSP. Estos estudios servirán para establecer el trazado definitivo, el costo estimado de la obra y el modelo de operación que se utilizará una vez el sistema entre en funcionamiento.

Entre los trabajos técnicos también se incluyen estudios de batimetría, geotecnia, hidrología y modelación hidráulica, necesarios para determinar las condiciones del terreno y reducir riesgos asociados a la construcción de puentes y tramos ferroviarios. Estas evaluaciones forman parte del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental que acompaña el desarrollo del proyecto.

Uno de los componentes más relevantes del plan contempla la construcción de un puente ferroviario sobre el Canal de Panamá, ubicado aproximadamente 185 metros al norte del Puente Centenario. La estructura permitiría conectar los sistemas logísticos del Pacífico y el Atlántico e integrar los puertos del país dentro de un mismo corredor ferroviario.

El proyecto también prevé el desarrollo de infraestructura logística en Corozal, donde se contempla un patio de contenedores con conexión hacia los puertos de Balboa y futuras terminales portuarias. Además, el sistema tendría una conexión directa con el ferrocarril Panamá-Colón, fortaleciendo la integración entre los principales centros logísticos del país.

De acuerdo con los estudios preliminares, el trazado tendría una extensión aproximada de 475 kilómetros entre Ciudad de Panamá y Paso Canoas, incluyendo al menos 14 estaciones para pasajeros y carga. Entre los puntos contemplados figuran Albrook, Panamá Pacífico, La Chorrera, Penonomé, Santiago, David y la frontera con Costa Rica.

Uno de los temas que ha generado mayor atención es el futuro del aeropuerto Marcos A. Gelabert, en Albrook, debido a que el área figura como punto de partida del sistema ferroviario. Faarup indicó que la terminal aérea podría continuar operando entre cinco y siete años mientras se planifica una eventual reubicación de operaciones hacia Panamá Pacífico o Tocumen, dependiendo de la evolución del proyecto.

Aunque el costo definitivo aún no ha sido determinado, las estimaciones preliminares sitúan la inversión por encima de los $5,000 millones. Las autoridades han señalado que el financiamiento se encuentra en fase de estructuración y que existe interés por parte de organismos multilaterales, banca de desarrollo y esquemas de asociación público-privada, los cuales podrían cubrir hasta el 85% del valor total de la obra.

Según las proyecciones oficiales, la construcción podría extenderse entre siete y ocho años y ejecutarse por etapas, comenzando en el área del Canal y avanzando posteriormente hacia el interior del país. El plan también contempla servicios de trenes de cercanía para sectores como Arraiján y La Chorrera, complementando la Línea 3 del Metro de Panamá y buscando reducir la congestión vehicular en el sector oeste.

Más allá de la obra física, las reuniones sostenidas con especialistas británicos reflejan que el Gobierno busca definir desde ahora cómo funcionará la estructura institucional que deberá administrar, regular y supervisar un sistema ferroviario que, de concretarse, se convertiría en una de las mayores inversiones de infraestructura en la historia reciente de Panamá.

A U.S. judge temporarily blocked the Justice Department Friday from «taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation» of a $1.778 billion «Anti-Weaponization Fund.» 

The Trump administration said last week that the fund will compensate Americans unfairly targeted by politicized federal investigations on a «case-by-case» basis.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s order on Friday comes in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs that includes a former career prosecutor who alleges he was fired for his handling of the Jan. 6 cases. The plaintiffs are suing to block payout from the fund. 

The order, which lists the Justice Department as a defendant, states that the DOJ is blocked «from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.» 

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PUSHES BACK ON ‘SLUSH FUND’ ATTACKS AGAINST ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND AND LAYS OUT WHO QUALIFIES

The judge also set a hearing for June 12 in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. 

A Justice Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital on Friday that «The Department remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements.»

«We will not allow the policy preferences of judges to interfere with our efforts to provide restitution to victims of lawfare,» the spokesperson added.

The plaintiffs challenging the fund include former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Floyd, an Alexandria resident who prosecuted Capitol riot cases in Washington, D.C., before he was fired last year by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Floyd was a deputy chief of the Justice Department’s Capitol Siege Section. He said he believes his firing was retaliation for his Jan. 6 work, according to The Associated Press. 

Another plaintiff is California State University Channel Islands professor Jonathan Caravello, who was acquitted of an assault charge. He was accused of throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents during a 2025 protest against an immigration raid at a Camarillo, California, cannabis farm. 

Also named as plaintiffs are the government watchdog Common Cause, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, and the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers.

New Haven claims the Trump administration officials have targeted it and other municipalities that they perceive to be «sanctuary» cities. The federation said it fears that the fund will issue payments to people who have attacked abortion clinics, providing an incentive for more violence against its members, the AP also reported. 

NEWSOM WANTS TO CLAW BACK TRUMP FUND CASH AS CALIFORNIA BURNS BILLIONS ON RAIL AND OTHER ‘BOONDOGGLES’

An image shows the Department of Justice building with an overlay of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

The Anti-Weaponization Fund was born out of a settlement between President Donald Trump and the Internal Revenue Service. Trump filed the lawsuit against the IRS in January over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax records. 

Claims will be determined by a five-person board appointed by the attorney general, with at least one member selected for consultation with congressional leadership, according to a Justice Department press release. At any point in time, the president has the power to remove a member without cause, it added. 

«This is about seeking accountability for all Americans who were victims of law fare and weaponization: millions of Americans whose online speech was censored at the behest of the government, parents silenced at school boards, Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed, churchgoers targeted by the FBI, and so on,» a Justice Department document stated. 

The Anti-Weaponization Fund was slated to last until Dec. 1, 2028. 

A banner featuring an image of President Donald Trump is displayed on the facade of the U.S. Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 20, 2026. (Drew Angerer/AFP/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

Funding for the Anti-Weaponization Fund is coming from the Judgment Fund, which is a permanent Treasury account used to pay for settlements and claims against the government. 

Fox News’ Elaine Mallon, Kerri Urbahn and The Associated Press contributed to this report.