Trump administration blasts Washington over immigration enforcement lawsuit
The Trump administration has lambasted the Washington attorney general's lawsuit against a county for cooperating with federal immigration agents in violation of state law.
The latest development, based on a court filing from the U.S. Department of Justice last week, marks another escalation of tensions between the state and feds over immigration.
President Donald Trump's Justice Department is asking a judge to side with Adams County as it faces litigation from Attorney General Nick Brown over the state's 'sanctuary' policy known as the Keep Washington Working Act.
'Washington asserts KWW is lawful, because it does not 'impede' federal officials from accomplishing their work,' DOJ senior litigation counsel J. Max Weintraub wrote. 'But that is exactly what KWW was designed to do. And it has accomplished that end — actively facilitating aliens' evasion of federal law in Washington.'
Weintraub argues that the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, enacted by Congress, preempts the Keep Washington Working Act. And he points to the Constitution's supremacy clause that holds federal statutes 'shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'
'KWW contravenes the Supremacy Clause for a host of independent reasons, and virtually at every turn,' Weintraub wrote.
Brown's lawsuit against Adams County has also received a stiff rebuke from Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Michael Baumgartner, whose eastern Washington district includes part of the county.
In a letter, Baumgartner and two other Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee wrote the state 'not only actively thwarts federal immigration enforcement, but it also targets local law enforcement officials for complying with federal law.'
Brown defended the law in a sharply-worded response last week and questioned why his lawsuit was getting such national attention.
Passed in 2019, the Keep Washington Working Act makes the state a so-called 'sanctuary' for immigrants without legal status. President Donald Trump has floated punishing such cities and states, including through withheld federal funding.
On Thursday, a federal judge in California blocked the Trump administration from taking that kind of recourse over immigration enforcement. Seattle, which has a sanctuary policy of its own, is one of more than a dozen local governments that brought the case.
The state law mostly stops local police from helping federal authorities with immigration enforcement. For example, police can't provide nonpublic personal information to federal authorities investigating civil immigration cases, and can't interview or detain people solely based on questions about their immigration status.
Police also aren't allowed to ask about their immigration status, except in rare cases.
In his lawsuit last month, Brown alleged the Adams County Sheriff's Office flouted the law for years. He says deputies unlawfully jailed people based solely on immigration status, enabled federal immigration agents to question those in custody and shared confidential personal information of Washingtonians with federal officials.
In court filings, the county denied the state's allegations, with arguments about the Keep Washington Working Act that mirror the DOJ.
In a Friday statement, Brown said the DOJ and Adams County employ 'the same factually and legally incorrect arguments.'
'There is no conflict between Keep Washington Working and federal law, and we look forward to continuing to present our case in court,' the attorney general continued.
The complaint, initially filed in state court in Spokane County, has been moved to federal court. The attorney general is looking to move it back to state court because the case is focused on allegations regarding state law, not federal.
Adams County, home to around 20,000 people in southeast Washington, has retained lawyers from a firm founded by top Trump aide and immigration hawk Stephen Miller.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
22 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Texas dispute highlights nation's long history of partisan gerrymandering. Is it legal?
Who is responsible for gerrymandering? In many states, like Texas, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional districts, subject to the approval or veto of the governor. District maps must be redrawn every 10 years, after each census, to balance the population in districts. But in some states, nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often. In an effort to limit gerrymandering, some states have entrusted redistricting to special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels of politicians. Democratic officials in some states with commissions are now talking of trying to sidestep them to counter Republican redistricting in Texas. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up How does a gerrymander work? Advertisement If a political party controls both the legislature and governor's office — or has such a large legislative majority that it can override vetoes — it can effectively draw districts to its advantage. One common method of gerrymandering is for a majority party to draw maps that pack voters who support the opposing party into a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts. Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party's voters by spreading them among multiple districts. Why is it called gerrymandering? The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing state Senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. Some thought an oddly shaped district looked like a salamander. A newspaper illustration dubbed it 'The Gerry-mander' — a term that later came to describe any district drawn for political advantage. Gerry lost re-election as governor in 1812 but won election that same year as vice president with President James Madison. Advertisement Is political gerrymandering illegal? Not under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: 'The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.' The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. But some state courts, including North Carolina's highest court, have ruled that they also have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims. Are there any limits on redistricting? Yes. Though it's difficult to challenge legislative districts on political grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges on racial grounds. In a 2023 case from Alabama, the high court said the congressional districts drawn by the state's Republican-led Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. The court let a similar claim proceed in Louisiana. Both states subsequently redrew their districts. What does data show about gerrymandering? Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering. Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, used the 2010 census data to create a strong gerrymander. An Associated Press analysis of that decade's redistricting found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years. Advertisement But Democrats responded to match Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The adoption of redistricting commissions also limited gerrymandering in some states. An AP analysis of the 2022 elections — the first under new maps — found that Republicans won just one more U.S. House seat than would have been expected based on the average share of the vote they received nationwide. That was one of the most politically balanced outcomes in years.
San Francisco Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump pressures China and India to stop buying cheap Russian oil
U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing China and India to stop buying oil from Russia and helping fund the Kremlin's war against Ukraine. Trump is raising the issue as he seeks to press Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire. But cheap Russian oil benefits refiners in those countries as well as meeting their needs for energy, and they're not showing any inclination to halt the practice. Three countries are big buyers of Russian oil China, India and Turkey are the biggest recipients of oil that used to go to the European Union. The EU's decision to boycott most Russian seaborne oil from January 2023 led to a massive shift in crude flows from Europe to Asia. Since then China has been the No. 1 overall purchaser of Russian energy since the EU boycott, with some $219.5 billion worth of Russian oil, gas and coal, followed by India with $133.4 billion and Turkey with $90.3 billion. Before the invasion, India imported relatively little Russian oil. Hungary imports some Russian oil through a pipeline. Hungary is an EU member, but President Viktor Orban has been critical of sanctions against Russia. The lure of cheaper oil One big reason: It's cheap. Since Russian oil trades at a lower price than international benchmark Brent, refineries can fatten their profit margins when they turn crude into usable products such as diesel fuel. Russia's oil earnings are substantial despite sanctions The Kyiv School of Economics says Russia took in $12.6 billion from oil sales in June. Russia continues to earn substantial sums even as the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations has tried to limit Russia's take by imposing an oil price cap. The cap is to be enforced by requiring shipping and insurance companies to refuse to handle oil shipments above the cap. Russia has to a great extent been able to evade the cap by shipping oil on a 'shadow fleet' of old vessels using insurers and trading companies located in countries that are not enforcing sanctions. Russian oil exporters are predicted to take in $153 billion this year, according to the Kyiv institute. Fossil fuels are the single largest source of budget revenue. The imports support Russia's ruble currency and help Russia to buy goods from other countries, including weapons and parts for them.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump on Sydney Sweeney controversy: If she's Republican, ‘I think her ad is fantastic'
President Trump on Sunday weighed in on actor Sydney Sweeney and her recent controversial ad campaign with American Eagle. 'You'd be surprised at how many people are Republicans,' the president said after a reporter stated that the 'White Lotus' and 'Euphoria' star is a registered Republican. 'That's what I wouldn't have known, but I'm glad you told me that. If Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic,' the president said while en route back to Washington on Sunday evening from Bedminster, N.J. BuzzFeed reported over the weekend that Sweeney has been registered to the Republican Party of Florida since June 2024. The ad featuring Sweeney has caused backlash online, with social media users criticizing what they claim are racist undertones surrounding the campaign's message that Sweeney 'has great jeans,' a riff on the idea of 'good genes.' 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color,' Sweeney says in one video. 'My jeans are blue.' Vice President Vance mocked critics of the ad in a recent interview, blaming Democrats for those who argue the commercial backs eugenics. 'So you have a pretty girl doing a jeans ad and they can't help but freak out. It reveals a lot more about them than it does us. No question,' Vance said on the 'Ruthless Podcast.' White House communications director Steven Cheung pointed to the backlash as an example of 'cancel culture run amok.' The Hill has reached out to a contact for Sweeney for comment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
