Latest news with #HouseBill1470
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Litigation grinds on over WA's power to regulate immigrant detention center
Northwest ICE Processing Center. (Grace Deng/Washington State Standard) The Washington attorney general's office last week asked a federal appeals court to restore a state law regulating the federal immigrant detention center in Tacoma, calling conditions there 'abhorrent.' It was the latest chapter in a legal fight between Washington and the company operating the facility over whether the state should be able to conduct inspections and other oversight there. If the state succeeds in defending its law, it could provide a new degree of transparency and state-level regulation at the center, which is the largest immigrant detention site in the region. At its core, the case is a test of state versus federal power — with the feds siding with the company and against the state even before President Donald Trump took office. The conflict is also playing out as Trump pushes for tougher immigration enforcement, which is already leading to rising numbers of people being held at facilities like the one in Tacoma. Last March, a federal judge in Seattle partly blocked a 2023 state law, ruling it usurped federal authority and applied to just one facility: The GEO Group's Northwest ICE Processing Center. As such, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle determined parts of the law violated the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause by imposing an economic burden on GEO through health and safety standards that the state doesn't apply to others. 'The Court will not permit the State to enforce unconstitutional laws so that it can seek to address the public policy concerns that gave rise to those laws,' Settle wrote in granting an injunction that halted enforcement of the law until the case is fully resolved. The state appealed Settle's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last Friday, attorneys for the Washington attorney general's office, GEO and the Department of Justice argued the case for 40 minutes in front of a panel of three appellate judges. In their questions, two of the three judges appeared to indicate agreement with the state's arguments. Marsha Chien, of the Washington state attorney general's office, acknowledged the Tacoma facility was the 'impetus' for the 2023 law, House Bill 1470. 'The fact that it only applies to GEO as a practical matter today is not enough for impermissible discrimination,' Chien argued. The law seeks to implement numerous new regulations on the private detention center, run by Florida-based GEO. Among other requirements, it mandated the facility provide fresh fruits and vegetables, air conditioning and heat, free telecommunication services, weekly mental health evaluations and rooms with windows. Failure to comply with the requirements could result in fines of $1,000 and $10,000 per violation, depending if the issue was negligence or intentional recklessness. The law also required the state departments of Health and Labor and Industries to conduct routine, unannounced inspections of the for-profit detention center. Labor and Industries inspected the site last summer with authority under a separate state law, and found no violations. Democratic lawmakers passed House Bill 1470 after the state had to abandon another law seeking to ban for-profit prisons. Appellate judges ruled a similar California law violated the supremacy clause. GEO's attorney, Dominic Draye, argued legislators passed the 2023 law to 'circumvent' that ruling. A proposal this year in Olympia seeks to amend the existing law further, by expanding the facilities that must meet the requirements to include all private detention centers, not just for-profit facilities. This definition would also include a juvenile detention facility near Spokane. The Constitution's supremacy clause requires state law to treat federal contractors the same as similar facilities. GEO argues Washington's law does not. This is one of the main areas the two sides are arguing over in the case. Settle, in ruling against the state last year, said Washington's law set stricter standards for the detention facility than it does for jails and prisons. Last week, Chien, the state's lawyer, made the case that the HB 1470 is in line with rules for involuntary psychiatric treatment facilities, which she said provide a more apt comparison to the immigrant detention center. Judge William Fletcher seemed sympathetic to the argument, indicating the detention center and psychiatric facilities that treat people committed involuntarily could be an 'apples-to-apples' comparison. Both types of facilities hold people in civil, rather than criminal, proceedings. Brad Hinshelwood, of the Department of Justice, countered that Settle got it right by comparing private detention centers and prisons, as they're built similarly. Many facility requirements in the 2023 law don't yet apply to the detention center. They only apply for contracts signed after Jan. 1, 2023. GEO and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last extended their contract in 2021. The agreement runs through this September. Because of this, Settle dismissed GEO's challenges to those specific provisions. Fletcher doubted GEO could challenge other parts of the law because they are subject to state rulemaking that hasn't happened yet. Although Draye repeatedly cited the California case striking down the law seeking to ban for-profit prisons as a north star for why Washington's law can't stand, Judge Jacqueline Nguyen pushed back. The judge said that the majority opinion in the California case 'made it very clear that there is considerable room for states to enforce their generally applicable laws against federal contractors.' And, Nguyen added, regulating health and safety is something that's been well recognized as falling within a state's powers. The 1,575-bed detention center in Tacoma, one of the biggest of its kind in the country, houses both locals detained for deportation as well as people authorities take into custody at the southern border and transport to Washington. Stays can range from a day to months or even years. In recent weeks, some of the flights bringing detainees to the facility have spiked in size as the Trump administration has attempted to ramp up deportations, advocates say. Private prison companies expect to profit from Trump's plans. In the past month, The GEO Group's stock has more than doubled. And U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's nomination drew ire last month from immigrant advocacy groups who noted her past lobbying for the company. The facility, formerly known as the Northwest Detention Center, has long faced scrutiny over alleged human rights violations. The University of Washington Center for Human Rights has found widespread use of solitary confinement, chronically unsanitary conditions and staff mistreatment of migrants housed there. These conditions lead to a 'neverending series of hunger strikes,' Chien told judges last week. The three-judge panel didn't indicate when it would issue a ruling. Democratic presidents appointed the judges who heard Friday's arguments. This is the same court that last month ruled GEO owed detainees over $23 million after paying them $1 a day for work in violation of state minimum wage law. Judge Fletcher wrote that opinion, while the other two judges in the case were different. Earlier this month, GEO asked the 9th Circuit to rehear that case, Nwauzor v. The GEO Group.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Push for inspections at Tacoma immigration detention center reemerges in WA Legislature
Mist shrouds the state Capitol dome in Olympia, Wash. on Jan. 27, 2025. (Bill Lucia/Washington State Standard) Following multiple lawsuits involving the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, state lawmakers are pushing again for greater transparency at the for-profit immigrant detention center. House Bill 1232, sponsored by Rep. Lillian Ortiz-Self, D-Mukilteo, would expand the definition of private detention facilities to include those run by nonprofit organizations. In fighting the state's attempts at oversight in court, The GEO Group, which runs the Tacoma facility, claimed they were singled out by previous legislation. 'If they really had nothing to hide, they would have opened their doors,' Ortiz-Self said. The Northwest ICE Processing Center is the only privately run adult detention facility in the state. GEO operates the center under a contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Martin Hall Juvenile Detention Facility, near Spokane, is not-for-profit and would be covered by this year's bill. Through this legislation, Ortiz-Self hopes to demonstrate the state is not targeting a single facility. 'It's really very simple, you do business in the state of Washington, you should uphold some basic human standards,' Ortiz-Self said. 'We would go after any other private detention facility,' she added, 'but we don't have any others.' The bill also includes some changes to the standards the state is seeking to enforce at the facilities, sets out new civil penalties for violations, and would make inspection findings available to the public. GEO did not return a request for comment. Debate over the legislation comes as President Donald Trump has pursued a set of hardline immigration policies since taking office last month. The Northwest ICE Processing Center is the largest immigration detention site in the region, with the capacity to hold about 1,575 people. For years, it has been the subject of complaints over human rights violations. The University of Washington Center for Human Rights has documented allegations of medical neglect, reports of sexual assaults, use of tear gas, lack of cleanliness, and unsafe food. People detained there have repeatedly gone on hunger strikes and there have also been reports of attempted suicides. In 2021, the Washington Legislature approved a law trying to force the detention center's closure, but it had to back down after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a similar California law. Since then, a series of court battles have focused on a 2023 Washington state law — House Bill 1470 — intended to give state health and workplace agencies authority to conduct inspections at private detention centers. Workplace inspectors from the Department of Labor and Industries did gain access to inspect the Northwest ICE Processing Center last year, following a court fight. But GEO and the state continue to disagree over other aspects of the law, including whether Department of Health inspectors should have access to the facility. 'We want the Department of Health and Human Services to be able to go into that facility and make sure that human beings are okay,' Ortiz-Self said. Revisions to required facility standards in the bill are somewhat nuanced. For example, House Bill 1470 required solitary confinement to be prohibited, mental health evaluations, and new clothing upon arrival. House Bill 1232 would remove this and other language, but it adds new provisions, like procedures to reduce the spread of diseases and more detailed food service rules. Ortiz-Self said that the standards she's proposed align with those for psychiatric hospitals. The bill would also clear the way for the Department of Health to assess civil fines up to $1 million against facilities that don't address problems identified during inspections. The money collected from these penalties will go to the department to provide training or technical assistance to the facilities. To Ortiz-Self, this legislation is about preserving human rights. 'We don't hear of that number of hunger strikes in our prisons,' she said, noting the frequency of hunger strikes at the Tacoma center. 'We have a right to ask what is going on and when the answer is 'you can't come in,' it makes us really suspicious.' How much power the state has to regulate a facility involved in federal immigration enforcement has been central to the ongoing litigation. Clashes over this and related issues continued Friday in one of the lawsuits stemming from House Bill 1470, with the state and GEO arguing before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Even before Trump took office, the U.S. Department of Justice sided with the company and against the state's law. Similarly, lawmakers opposed to the new bill argue the detention center is a federal facility and not a state issue. 'We would not have the health department go on to a military base to inspect the base, this is something we feel is similar,' said Jenny Graham, R-Spokane, in a recent committee hearing. If the bill doesn't pass this session, Ortiz-Self suggested she and other lawmakers would not back down from future attempts to regulate the facility. 'If GEO thinks we're gonna stop and sit back and say, 'Oh, well, we lost,' I hope, after the third time, they realize we are not,' she said.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill proposes increase in North Dakota fishing, some hunting license fees
Feb. 8—BISMARCK — The price of fishing licenses, some hunting licenses and assorted other permits in North Dakota would increase next year, pending the outcome of a bill in the Legislature. House Bill 1470 is sponsored by Reps. Glenn Bosch, R-Bismarck, and Todd Porter, R-Mandan. Sen. Dale Patten, R-Watford City, is sponsoring the bill in the Senate. Among the increases outlined in HB 1470, the price of a resident small game license would increase from $10 to $20, and a nonresident small game license would increase from $100 to $120. The price of a resident fishing license, which currently costs $18, would increase to $25, except for resident senior citizens and disabled veterans, who would pay $10 instead of the current fee of $5 for a fishing license. The price of an individual nonresident fishing license would increase to $60 from the current price of $53. Resident big game hunting licenses would remain at $30, while nonresident big game and archery licenses would increase from $250, the current price, to $350. Furbearer licenses, turkey licenses, paddlefish tags and resident early Canada goose licenses also would see slight increases under the proposal. The increases would take effect April 1, 2026, the start of the new license year in North Dakota. According to Jeb Williams, director of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the fees proposed in the bill are simply "to get the conversation started." The numbers could change, in other words. "Our hope is that (a fee increase) can be done in a way that spreads out the increases to all user groups so no one is significantly impacted," Williams said. "The fees that are out there in the bill are some comparables from neighboring states, which are always a nice guide for us on this discussion but certainly not a final product, either." The fee increases, Williams says, are necessary to offset the higher cost of doing business. From a budget standpoint, Game and Fish also has put extra emphasis on wildlife habitat and hunting access, he said. The price of hunting and fishing licenses in North Dakota hasn't increased since 2013, when the Legislature approved a fee hike that took effect in 2014. In an interview with the Grand Forks Herald, Rep. Todd Porter, the House co-sponsor, said legislation to increase license fees hasn't been a tough sell, historically, because it doesn't come along more than once a decade or so to keep up with annual increases in inflation. By law, Porter said, the Game and Fish Department's reserve fund can't fall below $15 million without legislative approval. Game and Fish is funded entirely by special funds — in this case, license and permit fees and some supplemental federal dollars. "We want to keep a little money in the bank with them," Porter said. "Over the years, that reserve has kind of fluctuated between $15 million and $30 million, and now it's projected to fall below $15 million in the next biennium. "So, we wanted to preemptively get in front of that and get our fees back in line with surrounding states. We aren't looking to be out in front of the cost to (hunt and fish) in the region. We just want to be in the general vicinity of it." The bill had its first hearing Thursday, Feb. 6, before the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Porter, who has served in the House since 1999, chairs the committee. John Bradley, executive director of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, said the organization supports the proposed license fee increase. The NDWF's goal, he said, is to see that fee increases address department needs without pricing anyone out of hunting or fishing in North Dakota. "I think it's past due," Bradley said in a recent interview. "We see the need on the landscape for more habitat, more access, and the license fee can go to address those (needs). "It's not going to get us where we need to go long term, but it is a step in the right direction. ... When you look around the country at other people's fees and license structures, we're one of the best deals in town — and I think we still will be the best deal in town. But it is time for a raise." Williams, the Game and Fish director, said the goal is to arrive at a number that puts the department in a position to maintain and build on the state's outdoors opportunities, while maintaining a reserve fund above the $15 million legislative mandate for years to come. "I anticipate, and welcome, input from many partners on the license fee increase bill," Williams said.
