Immigration enforcement at heart of divisive Chesapeake sheriff's race
At the heart of the division in the race is the city's immigration enforcement and cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Sheriff Dave Rosado said the city is following all ICE best practices and has even expanded its partnership. But his opponent, Chesapeake police officer Wallace Chadwick III, argues Rosado only began to hold inmates in custody on ICE detainers after Chadwick criticized the sheriff's office for not doing so.
Chesapeake Republican party members on the local, state and federal level are not a united front, and have split support among the two men.
The Republican primary is June 17. No other candidates have filed to run as Democrats or Independents, so whoever wins the primary would be the presumptive winner in the fall and secure a 4-year term. The sheriff's office handles jail security, courthouse security, civil enforcement and the school resource program, among other duties.
Rosado took the reins in November to fulfill the remaining term for former Sheriff Jim O'Sullivan, who retired after more than a decade. Rosado worked in the Chesapeake Sheriff's office for more than 20 years and became the city's first Hispanic undersheriff in 2022. In the office, he's overseen jail operations, expanded the school resource officer program for elementary schools and led anti-bullying initiatives for students.
'I've been with the office for 20 years, worked all sections of the jail, and I truly love what I do. And I want to continue serving the city,' Rosado said. 'There's no trying to get to know the job. I'm ready today because I've been doing the job.'
Chadwick is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and currently serves as a lieutenant and executive officer of the police's Special Operations Division and oversees the maritime operations unit. He's thrown his hat in the race to push against what he said is a tradition in Chesapeake of grooming someone internally within a 'good ole boys' network to step up and take over. He said he was compelled to run to change the 'culture' of the sheriff's office and give deputies 'a voice.'
'We've only had three elected sheriffs since 1963 and those elected sheriffs have been generationally passed down to the next guy,' Chadwick said. 'So essentially, they're grooming someone to take over their position and doing everything they can to assure that that way of life goes on.'
If elected, Chadwick said he also wants to boost recidivism and rehab programs in the jail as well as change and update data systems for more communication between the sheriff's office and the police department.
At the heart of Chadwick's campaign, however, is his criticism of how he said the sheriff's office has failed to cooperate with ICE under Rosado's leadership.
ICE detainers are requests to local law enforcement to hold a person in custody for 48 hours past their scheduled release to give federal authorities time to pick them up them for possible deportation proceedings. In the past, federal courts have found some local law enforcement agencies liable for unconstitutional detentions under ICE detainers. Last year, New York City agreed to pay $92 million in damages to immigrants who were unlawfully detained beyond scheduled release dates.
757 Votes: The Virginian-Pilot and Daily Press 2025 primary election guide
Chesapeake sheriff is being challenged by a city police officer
Youngkin directs Virginia State Police and prisons to cooperate with ICE
Chadwick alleges the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office was not honoring ICE detainer requests under O'Sullivan or Rosado — at least until he pointed it out and made it a talking point of his campaign. Chadwick's campaign website includes a host of documents he said he received through Freedom of Information Act requests, including emails and memos regarding the city's immigration enforcement policies. Chadwick slams Rosado for releasing a 'convicted child sex predator' instead of holding him for 48 hours before releasing him into ICE's custody.
'The right thing for him to do would have been to take full accountability and say, 'You know what? This was pointed out. We are now changing our policy. We are now in full compliance,'' Chadwick said. 'I would not have had an argument after that, because he came out, took accountability and said, 'Yes, we're doing it.' Instead, he doubled down. He said, 'We've always complied with ICE.''
Rosado denies those assertions. He said he adopted all existing policy when he assumed the role in November, and then policy was reviewed and updated in March following an executive order from Gov. Glenn Youngkin in February requesting sheriffs certify compliance with ICE.
The primary update was the implementation of a 48-hour detainer hold, which wasn't part of the policy in November. But after talking with other sheriffs about the executive order, Rosado said Chesapeake implemented the 48-hour hold, deemed an ICE best practice.
He explained that when someone is jailed for a charge, ICE is contacted if it's an undocumented immigrant, then contacted again five days before release and each subsequent day until release.
And as of this week, the city's ICE partnership was expanded to allow 72-hour holds, which Rosado said gives ICE extra time to process detainers without needing to travel hours away. Rosado said it was possible due to decreased restrictions under the federal administration.
'If (ICE) cannot come or make arrangements for transport at that time or prior, then legally, I cannot keep someone in our facility if the judge has released them, or their time is up, or if they make bonds,' he said.
Rosado said when he took over in November, 24 people in the Chesapeake jail had ICE detainers. He said ICE has since picked up most of them, two were transferred to another facility, and four remain in custody.
'It doesn't happen a lot. We are very fortunate that Chesapeake doesn't have those issues,' Rosado said. 'We don't have illegal immigrants running (rampant) in the city … and we do not have dangerous criminal illegal aliens being released by me or this jail into our community. So that is not true, and we work closely and have a great partnership with ICE.' ']
Rosado said he believes the attacks from his opponent are politically motivated.
'That's a narrative that someone who doesn't have their strategy is just to be negative when they have nothing to stand on or nothing to represent,' Rosado said. 'My opponent, he's a good cop, and I'm sure that in his role as traffic lieutenant, he's doing a good job, but I couldn't do that job. I don't know what makes him think that he can do my job.'
Local, state and federal Republicans are split on who they're backing in the race. Rosado touts endorsements from U.S. Rep. Jen Kiggans, Virginia Sen. Christie New Craig, Virginia Del. Barry Knight, Mayor Rick West, former Chesapeake Sheriffs John Newhart and O'Sullivan, the Chesapeake Fraternal Order of Police and council member Jeff Bunn. Rosado also boasts the endorsement of Tony Pham, assistant secretary for border and immigration policy in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Meanwhile, Chadwick has in his corner former Congressman Randy Forbes and wife Shirley, outgoing Virginia Del. Baxter Ennis, Virginia Sen. Bill DeSteph, Vice Mayor John de Triquet, former Commonwealth's Attorney Nancy Parr, council members Amanda Newins and Daniel Whitaker and the Chesapeake firefighters' union.
As for money in the race, Rosado boasts a more powerful war chest of $218,131 in campaign donations as of March 31. Among his biggest donations are $2,000 from New Craig's campaign committee, $1,000 from Historic Greenbrier Farms owner Kent Basnight and $5,000 from Collins Machine Works.
Chadwick has received $75,664 in donations as of March 31, including a $4,743 loan from himself. Donations include $1,000 from Newins' campaign and $1,000 from her individually, $1,000 from Whitaker, $300 from Triquet and a $7,500 in-kind donation from DeSteph.
Natalie Anderson, 757-732-1133, natalie.anderson@virginiamedia.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Thune keeps door open to nixing August recess after Trump request
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Monday that he is open to President Trump's call to cancel the August recess as part of the GOP's push to quickly confirm his nominees. Thune told reporters that he was considering the move, alleging Democrats broke precedent by not allowing the expeditious confirmation of any of Trump's nominees. 'We're thinking about it. We want to get as many [nominations] through the pipeline as we can,' Thune said at the Capitol, adding that it would be 'nice to have' Democrats 'act more according to historical precedents when it comes to this.' 'Trump's the first president in history that hasn't had a [nomination] adopted by this point in his presidency either by unanimous consent or voice. Not a single one,' Thune continued. 'Trying to get his team in place is something that we're very committed to and we're going to be looking at all the options in the next few weeks to try and get as many of those across the finish line as we can.' In addition to nominations, the South Dakota Republican said government funding and the annual National Defense Authorization Act would top the to-do list if members are kept in town. Thune also said he and Trump have discussed the idea. Trump on Saturday urged the GOP leader to keep senators in Washington. 'Hopefully the very talented John Thune, fresh off our many victories over the past two weeks and, indeed, 6 months, will cancel August recess (and long weekends!), in order to get my incredible nominees confirmed,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'We need them badly!!!' Republicans have scores of nominees waiting to get the green light for confirmation, including via the Foreign Relations Committee. GOP leaders have also started to move judicial nominees to the floor.
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him
Outside legal analysts say courts typically are slow to begin contempt proceedings for noncompliance, especially while their rulings are under appeal. Judges also are likely to be concerned, analysts say, that the U.S. Marshals Service - whose director is appointed by the president - might not serve subpoenas or take recalcitrant government officials into custody if ordered to by the courts. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The allegations against the administration are crystallized in a whistleblower complaint filed to Congress late last month that accused Justice officials of ignoring court orders in immigration cases, presenting legal arguments with no basis in the law and misrepresenting facts. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor also chided the administration, writing that Trump officials had 'openly flouted' a judge's order not to deport migrants to a country where they did not have citizenship. Advertisement The Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases - almost 35 percent. Advertisement Legal experts said the pattern of conduct is unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatens to undermine the judiciary's role as a check on an executive branch asserting vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution. Immigration cases have emerged as the biggest flash point, but the administration has also repeatedly been accused of failing to comply in lawsuits involving cuts to federal funding and the workforce. Trump officials deny defying court orders, even as they accuse those who have issued them of 'judicial tyranny.' When the Supreme Court in June restricted the circumstances under which presidential policies could be halted nationwide while they are challenged in court, Trump hailed the ruling as halting a 'colossal abuse of power.' 'We've seen a handful of radical left judges try to overrule the rightful powers of the president,' Trump said, falsely portraying the judges who have ruled against him as being solely Democrats. His point was echoed Monday by White House spokesman Harrison Fields, who attacked judges who have ruled against the president as 'leftist' and said the president's attorneys 'are working tirelessly to comply' with rulings. 'If not for the leadership of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch would collapse into a kangaroo court,' Fields said in a statement. Retired federal judge and former Watergate special prosecutor Paul Michel compared the situation to the summer of 1974, when the Supreme Court ordered President Richard M. Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings as part of the Watergate investigation. Nixon initially refused, prompting fears of a constitutional crisis, but ultimately complied. Advertisement 'The current challenge is even bigger and more complicated because it involves hundreds of actions, not one subpoena for a set of tapes,' Michel said. 'We're in new territory.' Deportations and defiance Questions about whether the administration is defying judges have bubbled since early in Trump's second term, when the Supreme Court said Trump must allow millions in already allocated foreign aid to flow. The questions intensified in several immigration cases, including high-profile showdowns over the wrongful deportation of an undocumented immigrant who came to the United States as a teenager and was raising a family in Maryland. The Supreme Court ordered the government to 'facilitate' Kilmar Abrego García's return after officials admitted deporting him to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador despite a court order forbidding his removal to that country. Abrego remained there for almost two months, with the administration saying there was little it could do because he was under control of a foreign power. In June, he was brought back to the United States in federal custody after prosecutors secured a grand jury indictment against him for human smuggling, based in large part on the testimony of a three-time felon who got leniency in exchange for cooperation. And recent filings in the case reveal that El Salvador told the United Nations that the U.S. retained control over prisoners sent there. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego's lawyers, said the events prove the administration was 'playing games with the court all along.' Advertisement Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago law professor, said the case is 'the sharpest example of a pattern that's observed across many of the cases that we've seen being filed against the Trump administration, in which orders that come from lower courts are either being slow-walked or not being complied with in good faith.' In another legal clash, Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg found Trump officials engaged in 'willful disregard' of his order to turn around deportation flights to El Salvador in mid-March after he issued a temporary restraining order against removing migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, which in the past had been used only in wartime. A whistleblower complaint filed by fired Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni alleges that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told staffers before the flights that a judge might try to block them - and that it might be necessary to tell a court 'f--- you' and ignore the order. Bove, who has since been nominated by Trump for an appellate judgeship and is awaiting Senate confirmation, denies the allegations. In May, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, opined that the government had 'utterly disregarded' her order to facilitate the return of a Venezuelan man who was also wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Like Boasberg, who was appointed by Obama, she is exploring contempt proceedings. Another federal judge found Trump officials violated his court order by attempting to send deportees to South Sudan without due process. In a fourth case, authorities deported a man shortly after an appeals court ruled he should remain in the U.S. while his immigration case played out. Trump officials said the removal was an error but have yet to return him. Advertisement One of the most glaring examples of noncompliance involves a program to provide legal representation to minors who arrived at the border alone, often fearing for their safety after fleeing countries racked by gang violence. In April, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a Biden appointee, ordered the Trump administration to fund the program. The government delayed almost four weeks and moved to cancel a contract the judge had ordered restarted. While the money was held up, a 17-year-old was sent back to Honduras before he could meet with a lawyer. Attorneys told the court that the teen probably could have won a reprieve with a simple legal filing. Alvaro Huerta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in a suit over the funding cuts, said other minors might have suffered the same fate. 'Had they been complying with the temporary restraining order, this child would have been represented,' Huerta said. Gaslighting the court Another problematic case involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to police unfair, abusive or deceptive practices by financial institutions. A judge halted the administration's plans to fire almost all CFPB employees, ruling the effort was unlawful. An appeals court said workers could be let go only if the bureau performed an 'individualized' or 'particularized' assessment. Four business days later, the Trump administration reported that it had carried out a 'particularized assessment' of more than 1,400 employees - and began an even bigger round of layoffs. CFPB employees said in court filings that the process was a sham directed by Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service. Employees said counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget told them to brush off the court's required particularized assessment and simply meet the layoff quota. Advertisement 'All that mattered was the numbers,' said one declaration submitted to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee. Jackson halted the new firings, accusing the Trump administration of 'dressing' its cuts in 'new clothes.' David Super, a Georgetown law professor, said the government has used the same legal maneuver in a number of cases. 'They put out a directive that gets challenged,' Super said. 'Then they do the same thing that the directive set out to do but say it's on some other legal basis.' He pointed to January, when OMB issued a memo freezing all federal grants and loans. Affected groups won an injunction. The White House quickly announced it was rescinding the memo but keeping the freeze in place. Justice Department attorneys argued in legal filings that the government's action rendered the injunction moot, but the judge said it appeared it had been done 'simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.' In another case, a judge blocked the administration from ending federal funds for programs that promote 'gender ideology,' or the idea that someone might identify with a gender other than their birth sex, while the effort was challenged in court. The National Institutes of Health nevertheless slashed a grant for a doctor at Seattle Children's Hospital who was developing a health education tool for transgender youth. The plaintiffs complained it was a violation of the court order, but the NIH said the grant was being cut under a different authority. Whistleblowers came forward with documents showing that the administration had apparently carried out the cuts under the executive order that was at the center of the court case. U.S. District Judge Lauren King, a Biden appointee, said the documents 'have raised substantial questions' about whether the government violated her preliminary injunction and ordered officials to produce documents. The government eventually reinstated the grant. In a different case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, was unsparing in her decision to place a hold on the Trump's administration's ban on transgender people serving in the military, saying the order was 'soaked in animus.' Then the government issued a new policy targeting troops who have symptoms of 'gender dysphoria,' the term for people who feel a mismatch between their gender identity and birth sex, and asked Reyes to dissolve her order. Reyes was stunned. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had made repeated public statements describing the policy as a ban on transgender troops. Hegseth had recently posted on X: 'Pentagon says transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.' 'I am not going to abide by government officials saying one thing to the public - what they really mean to the public - and coming in here to the court and telling me something different, like I'm an idiot,' the judge told the government's lawyer. 'The court is not going to be gaslit.' Courts have traditionally assumed public officials, and the Justice Department in particular, are acting honestly, lawfully and in good faith. Since Trump returned to the White House, however, judges have increasingly questioned whether government lawyers are meeting that standard. 'The pattern of stuff we have … I haven't seen before,' said Andrew C. McCarthy, a columnist for the conservative National Review and a former federal prosecutor. 'The rules of the road are supposed to be you can tell a judge, 'I can't answer that for constitutional reasons,' or you can tell the judge the truth.' A struggle for accountability While many judges have concluded that the Trump administration has defied court orders, only Boasberg has actively moved toward sanctioning the administration for its conduct. And he did so only after saying he had given the government 'ample opportunity' to address its failure to return the deportation flights to El Salvador. The contempt proceedings he began were paused by an appeals court panel without explanation three months ago. The two judges who voted for the administrative stay were Trump appointees. On Friday, the Trump administration brokered a deal with El Salvador and Venezuela to send the Venezuelan deportees at the heart of Boasberg's case back to their homeland, further removing them from the reach of U.S. courts. A contempt finding would allow the judge to impose fines, jail time or additional sanctions on officials to compel compliance. In three other cases, judges have denied motions to hold Trump officials in contempt, but reiterated that the government must comply with a decision, or ordered the administration to turn over documents to determine whether it had violated a ruling. Judges are considering contempt proceedings in other cases as well. Most lawsuits against the administration have been filed in federal court districts with a heavy concentration of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The vast majority of judges who have found the administration defied court orders were appointed by Democrats, but judges selected by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have also found that officials failed to comply with orders. Most notably, at least two Trump picks have raised questions about whether officials have met their obligations to courts. Legal experts said the slow pace of efforts to enforce court orders is not surprising. The judicial system moves methodically, and judges typically ratchet up efforts to gain compliance in small increments. They said there is also probably another factor at work that makes it especially difficult to hold the administration to account. 'The courts can't enforce their own rulings - that has to be done by the executive branch,' said Michel, the former judge and Watergate special prosecutor. He was referring to U.S. Marshals, the executive branch law enforcement personnel who carry out court orders related to contempt proceedings, whether that is serving subpoenas or arresting officials whom a judge has ordered jailed for not complying. Former judges and other legal experts said judges might be calculating that a confrontation over contempt proceedings could result in the administration ordering marshals to defy the courts. That type of standoff could significantly undermine the authority of judges. The Supreme Court's June decision to scale back the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and the administration's success at persuading the justices to overturn about a dozen temporary blocks on its agenda in recent months, might only embolden Trump officials to defy lower courts, several legal experts said. Sotomayor echoed that concern in a recent dissent when she accused the high court of 'rewarding lawlessness' by allowing Trump officials to deport migrants to countries that are not their homelands. The conservative majority gave the green light, she noted, after Trump officials twice carried out deportations despite lower court orders blocking the moves. 'This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.' Two months after a federal court temporarily blocked Trump's freeze on billions in congressionally approved foreign aid, an attorney for relief organizations said the government had taken 'literally zero steps to allocate this money.' Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, has ordered the administration to explain what it is doing to comply with the order. Trump officials have said they will eventually release the funds, but aid groups worry the administration is simply trying to delay until the allocations expire in the fall. Meanwhile, about 66,000 tons of food aid is in danger of rotting in warehouses, AIDS cases are forecast to spike in Africa and the government projected the cuts would result in 200,000 more cases of paralysis caused by polio each year. Already, children are dying unnecessarily in Sudan. Such situations have prompted some former judges to do something most generally do not - speak out. More than two dozen retired judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents have formed the Article III Coalition to push back on attacks and misinformation about the courts. Robert J. Cindrich, who helped found the group, said the country is not yet in a constitutional crisis but that the strain on the courts is immense. Citing the administration's response to orders, as well as its attacks on judges and law firms, Cindrich said, 'The judiciary is being put under siege.'
Buzz Feed
24 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
The Internet Is Dragging Megyn Kelly For Calling Stephen Colbert A Failure
Radio host and podcaster Megyn Kelly tried to take a victory lap after the announcement last week that Stephen Colbert 's Late Show would be canceled by CBS after 10 years on the air and despite it being the highest-rated show in its time slot. But given her own history, it didn't go well. Kelly said on her show Friday that Colbert took The Late Show ― which was started by David Letterman ― and 'completely drove it into the ground.' 'He desperately wanted to be Keith Olbermann,' she said. 'And guess what? Keith Olbermann is a failure, and now so are you, Stephen Colbert.' Kelly was a longtime host at Fox News, where she drew the ire of then-candidate Donald Trump during a Republican debate in 2015. 'You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,' Trump infamously complained at the time. ' Blood was coming out of her — wherever.' She later left Fox and signed a three-year $69 million deal with NBC, which included a Sunday night news magazine show and a third hour of the Today show called Megyn Kelly Today. But she struggled in the ratings, and was taken off the air after she defended the use of blackface as part of Halloween costumes. She apologized, but the show was canceled days later after a little more than a year on the air. NBC reportedly paid out her full contract. After she left, the third hour of the Today show jumped in the ratings by 18%, NBC News reported at the time. The feed on X (formerly Twitter) for Kelly's show posted her comments about Colbert ― and Kelly's critics fired back with some reminders of her own past: Hmm. Let me get this right. @StephenAtHome @colbertlateshow had a successful 10-year run on CBS. @megynkelly failed MASSIVELY on NBC. In fact, she will go down as one of the biggest failures in media history. Didn't last 2 years, and they had to pay her $60M-plus. Be quiet, Megyn — rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) July 20, 2025 @rolandsmartin/X / Via You might want to lighten up on the 'cautionary tale of failure' and do some self reflection before calling anyone else out. — Dawn Young-McDaniel❌👑 (@justdawn_) July 20, 2025 @justdawn_/x / Via It is one of the most amazing acts of memory-holing in media history that Kelly pretends that she didn't sell out to NBC after Trump's first election (using her feud with him & saying she was apolitical), & then after she was fired there slowly became a leading MAGA influencer.😂 — John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) July 21, 2025 @Zigmanfreud/X / Via What happened when you went to NBC? — Mark Banker (@themarkbanker) July 20, 2025 @themarkbanker/X / Via Alright, Megyn, let me lay it on the line for ya. You call Stephen Colbert . @StephenAtHome being a failure? Here's the score: Colbert's been the undisputed heavyweight champ of late-night TV for years. He's been number one in total viewers and the key 18-49 demographic for… — Human☮🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🌊 (@4HumanUnity) July 20, 2025 @4HumanUnity/X / Via If being fired/cancelled was the barometer for failure, someone should get Meg a mirror. — Mike Therien (@miketherien) July 20, 2025 @miketherien/X / Via Megyn, who had to crawl back into Trump's good graces after he insulted and humiliated her, calling someone else a failure? — Rich (@RealRichWilkins) July 21, 2025 @RealRichWilkins/X / Via Megyn who? LOL The lack of self-awareness among this crowd is really something else. Colbert still has a hit show. As for Megyn… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — John Aravosis 🇺🇸🇬🇷🏳️🌈 (@aravosis) July 21, 2025 @aravosis/X / Via Like if Kid Rock said Springsteen's a failure. — Chuck Throckmorton (@ChuckThrock) July 20, 2025 @ChuckThrock/X / Via
