Washington defends KWW restrictions on ICE prison notifications

(WASHINGTON) Washington Governor Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson are holding firm against new federal pressure, keeping strict limits on how state prisons and local jails share information with ICE about noncitizens in custody.

In an August 2025 letter, the U.S. Department of Justice warned the state that its sanctuary policies—especially rules that block routine release notifications to immigration agents—could conflict with federal law and put funding at risk. State leaders say the rules comply with federal requirements and remain unchanged. As of August 22, 2025, the Keep Washington Working Act stays fully in force, and the Attorney General’s Office confirms there has been no policy reversal.

Core dispute: what information may be shared

At the heart of the dispute is which information state and local agencies can share.

• Washington law allows officers to share a person’s immigration or citizenship status when a federal law requires it (for example, 8 U.S.C. § 1373).
• The law blocks sharing other nonpublic personal details—such as release dates, release times, and home addresses—unless a judge orders it or another law clearly demands it.

Governor Inslee and AG Ferguson argue this approach supports public safety by preserving trust in communities while still following federal rules.

Federal challenge and state response

The DOJ’s letter is the most direct federal challenge since the law passed in 2019. It signals that Washington could face a lawsuit or the loss of some grants if the state refuses to provide broader notice to ICE about people set for release from prisons and county jails.

The Attorney General’s Office responded:

• State agencies already review every request.
• They share what federal law clearly requires.
• They decline informal demands for nonpublic data that lack a court order.

Officials emphasize the Keep Washington Working Act does not block cooperation in criminal cases. Agencies may collect or share immigration-related facts when they are directly tied to a criminal investigation. The state’s focus is on civil immigration enforcement—work that belongs to federal officers, not local police.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the law draws a firm line around nonpublic personal data and sets a uniform playbook for agencies, schools, and courts.

Policy framework and operational rules

Passed in 2019, the Keep Washington Working Act reshaped how state and local government interact with federal immigration enforcement.

Key features:

• Agencies must wall off civil immigration work from core public safety duties.
• Public schools, courthouses, health facilities, and all law enforcement agencies must use model policies issued by the Attorney General’s Office or submit their own for review.
• Agencies must avoid asking about or collecting immigration/citizenship status unless it is directly relevant to a criminal case.
• Agencies are not to share nonpublic personal information (release date/time, work address, home address, contact details) for civil immigration enforcement unless:
  • A court order, warrant, or
  • A clear federal law requires it.

The Attorney General’s Office reaffirmed this position on February 20, 2025, telling agencies the guidance and model policies remain fully in effect.

State implementation practices:

• Officers can confirm a known immigration status if asked under a valid authority, but generally do not send release dates or addresses to ICE without a judge’s order.
• Requests are routed to supervisors or legal counsel so decisions follow written policy rather than ad hoc calls at the jail desk.
• Model policies instruct courthouses, schools, and health facilities how to check federal credentials and how to respond to requests.
• Agencies must submit their policies to the Attorney General’s Office, which posts them for public review.

Although the DOJ’s letter is a sharp escalation, it is not a court order. The state says it will defend the law if sued and will continue training agencies to follow it. Community organizations, including CAIR-WA and the Washington Immigration Solidarity Network, have amplified know-your-rights outreach and legal hotlines as reports of increased ICE activity continue.

Practical effects across agencies and communities

For noncitizens in Washington’s prisons and county jails:

• Release dates and times are generally not shared with ICE unless a court orders it or another law clearly requires it.
• People still must follow all criminal court rules, but the risk of being transferred to civil immigration detention upon release is lower under state policy than in places that send routine notices.

For law enforcement:

• Procedures are consistent and emphasize caution.
• Training reminds officers not to ask about status unless it matters for a criminal investigation.
• Requests from ICE for nonpublic data are routed to supervisors; front-line staff avoid making quick decisions that conflict with policy.
• If an email or call asks for a release date without a judge’s order, staff typically decline and document the request.

For public schools, health facilities, and courthouses:

• Staff confirm identities and legal authority before sharing records.
• Steps are in place to protect access to school, clinic, and hospital services without fear of civil immigration checks.
• Courthouses use screening to keep civil immigration enforcement out of state proceedings unless authorized by a judge.

Operational distinction emphasized by the state:

• The Act permits sharing immigration or citizenship status when federal law requires it; it does not permit sharing other nonpublic personal data without judicial authorization.
• Many agencies separate these requests in intake systems to identify what is allowed under federal law and what must be rejected without a court order.
• The state stresses the difference between a judicial warrant signed by a judge and an administrative request signed by an immigration officer. Without a court order, release information is generally not shared.

Community support and contacts:

• Community groups help people prepare for possible enforcement actions and publish rights guidance.
• Hotlines and contacts:
  • WAISN Deportation Defense Hotline: 1-844-724-3737 (Monday–Friday, 6am–6pm)
  • CAIR-WA: 206-367-4081
• Attorney General’s Office contact for agencies and the public: [email protected]

Agencies must share written policies with the AGO for review and public posting. If an agency wants to adopt a different approach, it must provide written reasons and show how the alternative still complies with the Keep Washington Working Act.

Legal landscape and what comes next

Background:

• Since 2019, courts have generally allowed states to draw lines like Washington’s so long as they do not block the sharing of immigration or citizenship status required by federal law.
• This legal backdrop supports state leaders’ confidence that the Act honors federal rules on status while limiting local involvement in civil immigration enforcement.

Outstanding issues and likely paths:

1. What a jail should do when ICE calls asking for a release date
   • First check for a court order or judicial warrant.
   • Without a court order, staff typically do not share release dates or other nonpublic information.
   • If the request is only about confirming immigration or citizenship status, staff can share as required by federal law.

1. Funding threats
   • The DOJ threatened to act on grants if agencies keep declining notification requests without court orders.
   • State officials say they will fight any funding cuts in court, pointing to prior rulings that limited the federal government’s power to condition grants on immigration cooperation.
   • For now, no state grant reductions have been announced in connection with the DOJ’s warning.

Broader context:

• The Act was written amid concerns about expanded federal enforcement and its reach into schools, clinics, and courthouses.
• Provisions bar new agreements with federal immigration agencies for civil enforcement unless the state expressly approves them—a stance unchanged in 2025.

Key legal tension:

• The dispute turns on a narrow but crucial line: what counts as required sharing under federal law.
• Washington says that line covers immigration or citizenship status but does not extend to nonpublic personal data like release timing or home addresses.
• The DOJ wants broader cooperation on notifications, even without judicial approval.
• Both sides claim public safety advantages: Washington emphasizes community trust; the DOJ emphasizes safer custody transfers and fewer field arrests.

Resources and continued guidance:

• The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website explains detainers and notification requests: https://www.ice.gov/detainers.
• The state’s message: continue using AGO model policies or approved alternatives, train staff on the distinction between status information and nonpublic data, and escalate difficult requests before responding.
• The Attorney General’s Office says the law remains active statewide and that it will defend it if the federal government files suit. State training materials will continue to be updated for consistent agency practice.

Final status

For now, the state’s policy remains unchanged. Agencies in Washington will continue to limit when they notify ICE about releases, share status information as required by federal law, and protect other nonpublic data unless a judge orders disclosure.