The Trump administration filed a federal lawsuit against Massachusetts, accusing the state of illegally refusing to issue confidential license plates for vehicles used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection agents.
According to the complaint, filed Tuesday in federal court in Massachusetts, and reported by the Boston Globe, the Department of Justice argues that state officials are interfering with federal immigration enforcement by denying requests that would allow undercover or sensitive federal vehicles to avoid public identification.
The lawsuit names Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, Transportation Secretary Phillip Eng, and Registrar of Motor Vehicles Colleen Ogilvie as defendants.
Federal officials claim the state's refusal creates safety risks for agents conducting immigration enforcement operations and could expose officers to harassment, retaliation, or violence.
"Federal law enforcement agencies operate throughout the United States enforcing federal law, including the immigration laws in Title 8," the complaint states, according to court documents first highlighted by Politico reporter Josh Gerstein.
The case centers on Massachusetts policies governing so-called "confidential" or "restricted" license plates, which conceal vehicle ownership information from public databases and are commonly used for undercover police work or sensitive law enforcement operations.
The Trump administration argues Massachusetts has approved similar protections for state and local law enforcement vehicles while denying them to federal immigration agencies, particularly ICE and CBP.
The lawsuit escalates the already tense relationship between the Trump administration and several Democratic-led states over immigration enforcement.
Massachusetts officials have repeatedly clashed with federal authorities on issues tied to deportation operations, migrant detention policies, and cooperation between local police and federal immigration agents.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell has been one of the most vocal Democratic attorneys general opposing Trump administration immigration measures. Her office has joined multiple lawsuits challenging federal deportation policies and immigration enforcement actions since Trump returned to office.
The filing also comes as immigration officers face increasing public scrutiny and protests across the country. In recent months, activists have posted videos online identifying ICE vehicles and agents during enforcement operations, prompting federal officials to argue that operational secrecy has become increasingly critical.
The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly warned that agents have been targeted, harassed and doxxed online during immigration raids and courthouse arrests.
Critics of confidential plates, however, argue the practice limits public accountability and makes it harder to investigate complaints involving government vehicles.
Civil liberties groups have long raised concerns about expanding secrecy protections for immigration enforcement, particularly during an administration carrying out aggressive deportation operations.
The complaint asks the court to declare Massachusetts' actions unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, arguing states cannot obstruct federal agencies carrying out official duties authorized under federal law.
The Justice Department is also seeking injunctive relief that would force Massachusetts officials to issue the confidential registrations requested by ICE and CBP.
Neither the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office nor the Registry of Motor Vehicles immediately issued a detailed public response to the lawsuit Tuesday afternoon.
The legal battle adds another front to the broader political fight between the Trump administration and Democratic-led states resisting aspects of federal immigration policy.
It also arrives as Trump continues pushing immigration enforcement to the center of his second-term agenda, with ICE operations expanding nationwide and the administration pressuring local governments to cooperate more aggressively with federal authorities.
The case is expected to test how far states can go in limiting cooperation with federal immigration agencies when the dispute involves operational tools rather than direct enforcement authority.
