Baumgartner and House Judiciary Committee investigating Washington AG, state's sanctuary policies
Mar. 31—Rep. Michael Baumgartner and other members of a House oversight committee sent a letter to Washington Attorney General Nick Brown claiming the state's "sanctuary law" is preventing local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials.
It's the latest example of confusion and discord as a state government's laws conflict with the second Trump administration's sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration, diversity initiatives and protections for transgender students.
The letter obtained by The Spokesman-Review is signed by the Eastern Washington Republican congressman, U.S. House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Tom McClintock of California, who is chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement.
The judiciary committee requests the state attorney general's office provide all documents and communications relating to state and local law enforcement agencies' interactions with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection since January 2023.
It also asks for the number of ICE detainers Washington law enforcement "declined to honor" during that time and the amount of "taxpayer funding" used to pursue legal action against the Adams County Sheriff's Department. Brown announced on March 10 that his office had sued the Adams County Sheriff's Office, alleging the agency of illegally cooperating with federal immigration enforcement in violation of state law.
The letter asks for the information as soon as possible, but no later than April 14.
"Federal law explicitly prohibits any restriction on communication between state or local entities and federal immigration authorities relating to an individual's immigration status," the letter states. "The state of Washington not only actively thwarts federal immigration enforcement, but it also targets local law enforcement officials for complying with federal law."
Mike Faulk, deputy communications director for the attorney general, said the office is reviewing the letter.
Officially called the Keep Washington Working Act, the state sanctuary law forbids local law enforcement from using local resources to help federal officials enforce immigration law.
At a town hall in Spokane two weeks ago, Baumgartner hinted that he would try to change that but did not elaborate.
In an interview with The Spokesman-Review last week, he said he was concerned about the attorney general's office going after Adams County and that the judiciary committee would take a look at the issue.
"First, we need to find out exactly what they're doing," Baumgartner said.
He said he supports withholding some federal funding for sanctuary states.
"If it's not civil rights or immigration, I'm a states' rights guy; I want to have as much freedom, but on this thing, I think there will be some financial implications that we're trying to navigate."
Baumgartner did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. David Yost, a spokesman for ICE, declined to comment.
The Adams County lawsuit, which was filed in Spokane County Superior Court, alleges the sheriff's office held people in custody based on their immigration status, gave immigration officials confidential information and helped federal immigration officials question those in custody, each of which the lawsuit alleges "expressly violates state law."
The lawsuit alleges that between May 2019 and January 2022, the Sheriff's Office shared nonpublic information with federal immigration officials at least 212 times, which included sending a "new in custody" list to federal officials "on a near-weekly basis." That violates the state's 2019 keep Washington Working Act, the suit said.
That law says state and local law enforcement agencies may not provide nonpublicly available personal information about an individual, including individuals in custody, to federal immigration authorities in a noncriminal matter, "except as required by state or federal law."
According to Brown, Adams County was engaged in "good faith settlement negotiations" with the attorney general's office in late 2024, prior to the inauguration of President Donald Trump.
In February, the Adams County Sheriff's Office retained attorneys from America First Legal, which was founded by Stephen Miller, a senior aide to Trump. In a Feb. 20 letter, a lawyer representing Adams County wrote in a letter to the attorney general's office the county "simply desires to follow federal immigration law and to cooperate with the lawful requests of federal officials."
Following the lawsuit, America First Legal Senior Counsel James Rogers said it was "outrageous" that Washington had worked to subvert federal immigration law.
Matt Adams, legal director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Monday called the committee's investigation "political gamesmanship."
He said the state and federal laws clearly do not conflict. The state law does not prohibit local law enforcement from sharing information on immigration status or citizenship, it just says it is not local law enforcement's job to spend resources investigating federal immigration violations, just as it is not their job to investigate federal tax filings. The 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from commandeering state resources.
In fact, Adams said, not only is it against state law, it is also against federal law for local officials to enforce federal law, because that is beyond their authority.
"State officials violate the federal law when they hold on to people or arrest people for immigration," Adams said.
Detainers, or federal requests for local law enforcement to continue to detain people in custody for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would have been released so federal immigration enforcement can take over custody, are just requests without any legal authority, Adams said.
The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project has a separate lawsuit against the Adams County Sheriff's Office, claiming deputies unlawfully detained their client in 2023 based solely at the request of federal immigration officials to enforce civil immigration law.
Spokane City Council passed a nonbinding resolution signaling the city's support of the Keep Washington Working Act at a packed meeting in February.
Councilman Paul Dillon, who voted in favor of the resolution, said sanctuary policies help ensure people call law enforcement when they need assistance, including in domestic violence cases, and the constant threat of immigration enforcement makes people afraid to call 911 and report crimes.
Dillon called the judiciary committee's action a mostly performative measure that continues "to bully cities and counties and states that have taken proactive, legally protected policy positions that do protect the rights of immigrant communities from unnecessary contact with ICE and border control, which is exactly what the Keep Washington Working Act does."
Councilman Michael Cathcart, who voted against the city's resolution, said he anticipated some kind of federal action and that Spokane's resolution made it more likely by highlighting the issue.
"This isn't necessarily in particular going to come down on Spokane, but this is something we expected to come," Cathcart said. "Some federal dollars are certainly at risk as a result of it, and that's the choice that's been made at the state and local levels."
Cathcart said that aspects of the state law conflict with federal law and could be highlighted by the committee's review.
Reporters Emry Dinman and Orion Donovan Smith contributed to this article.
James Hanlon's reporting for The Spokesman-Review is funded in part by Report for America and by members of the Spokane community. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill.
33 minutes ago
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same.
New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
Vance says Musk's public feud with Trump is a ‘huge mistake,' hopes billionaire ‘comes back into fold'
Vice President JD Vance said it was a huge mistake for Elon Musk to be at war with President Trump amid their escalating feud and is hopeful that the billionaire Tesla founder 'comes back into the fold.' 'Elon is entitled to his opinion,' Vance said during an interview with comedian Theo Von, which was released on Saturday. 'I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying. I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man — I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — to be at war with the world's most powerful man, who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody in my lifetime.' Advertisement Vance's appearance on Von's popular podcast, 'This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von,' was recorded as Trump and billionaire Musk traded barbs on social media over the latter's complaints about the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, 'yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue.' But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so,' Vance said. 'Hopefully, Elon figures it out, comes back into the fold. I know the president was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon. But I think it has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk. And I actually think that if Elon chilled out a little bit everything would be fine.' Advertisement 3 Vice President JD Vance appeared on Theo Von's podcast. X/JDVance The SpaceX founder signaled support for impeaching Trump and replacing him with Vance in one of several jabs directed at the commander in chief. 'President vs Elon. Who wins? My money's on Elon. Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him,' right-wing commentator Ian Miles Cheong wrote on X. To which Musk replied: 'Yes.' Advertisement Vance appears to be fully in Trump's corner amid the public spat between the two billionaires — and expressed his support of the president in an X post late Thursday night. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads. I'm proud to stand beside him,' the veep wrote. In an earlier post, as the Trump-Musk drama was simmering down on social media, Vance had teased that he would be appearing on Von's show. 'Slow news day, what are we even going to talk about?' Vance wrote on X. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump points at Elon Musk during a conversation inside the Oval Office of the White House on March 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 3 Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump and vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance appear on the first day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisc. on July 15, 2024. Getty Images Musk shared the vice president's post and reacted with a laughing emoji. Von previously interviewed both Vance and Trump in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. Trump's August 2024 appearance on Von's show racked up nearly 17 million views on YouTube. The podcaster later attended Trump's inauguration and made a surprise appearance at a US air base in Qatar, where the president spoke to service members and their families last month.
