DOJ Designates Seattle, Washington State as Sanctuary Jurisdictions

(SEATTLE) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 14, 2025, named Seattle and Washington State as “sanctuary jurisdictions,” placing them on a newly updated federal list that targets cities and states accused of blocking immigration enforcement. The move follows Executive Order 14287, signed by President Trump on April 28, 2025, which directs the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security to identify places that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to consider tying immigration-related conditions to federal funding.

The DOJ warned that jurisdictions on the list could face the loss of federal grants and contracts, and even civil or criminal prosecution of local officials who refuse to follow federal immigration law. The announcement also named 12 other states and 17 cities, including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. An official DOJ list is posted online, where the department says it will add or remove jurisdictions as local rules change. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the list signals a wider federal push to pressure local governments that maintain policies limiting ICE cooperation.

Federal designation, rationale, and funding threats

DOJ officials say sanctuary policies make it harder to enforce federal law and “put American citizens at risk.” Attorney General Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem have pledged more lawsuits and funding conditions until cities and states change course. In recent weeks, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against New York City (July 24, 2025) and has hinted at similar steps elsewhere.

Seattle and Washington leaders pushed back. Governor Bob Ferguson and Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said they will defend state and city rules, arguing these measures build community trust and make neighborhoods safer. City Attorney Ann Davison maintains that Seattle’s rules follow federal law and fit within local authority.

The DOJ cites several factors when designating a sanctuary jurisdiction, including:
– Public claims of “sanctuary” or similar status.
– Laws or city rules that limit police cooperation with ICE.
– Limits on sharing a detainee’s immigration status.
– Bans on spending local funds for federal immigration enforcement.
– Refusing ICE detainer requests without a judge’s warrant.
– Blocking ICE access to local jails unless a detainee agrees.
– Offering local benefits such as housing, health care, or legal aid to undocumented residents.

In Washington:
– A 2019 state law largely bars local police from helping with federal immigration actions.
– Seattle’s “Welcoming City” ordinance, first passed in 2003, restricts city employees from asking about immigration status unless required by law.

These measures are now under DOJ scrutiny. Federal officials also flagged possible “false claims of compliance,” warning jurisdictions could face audits and loss of grants if local rules conflict with federal priorities. While the department did not list which funds might be cut, past disputes have focused on law enforcement and public safety grants. The DOJ says each case will turn on specific local policies and how they affect federal enforcement.

One official DOJ resource outlines the updated list and the process by which jurisdictions can respond, noting the list will be reviewed often and may change based on local actions. Readers can review the DOJ’s update here: https://www.justice.gov/ag/us-sanctuary-jurisdiction-list-following-executive-order-14287-protecting-american-communities

Legal fight and local policies

Local governments argue the anti-commandeering doctrine prevents the federal government from forcing states and cities to carry out federal programs. In simple terms: the United States can enforce its own laws, but it cannot order states to use their people or money to do federal work. Courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have backed this view in past cases, and the Supreme Court left those rulings in place in 2021.

The legal battle widened this week. On August 13, 2025, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking DHS from using Medicaid data from Washington and 19 other states for immigration enforcement, finding likely violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge said the policy could break federal rules and harm public trust. The order shields the privacy of more than 1.9 million Apple Health enrollees in Washington, including about 49,000 undocumented residents.

State officials say the ruling will help keep families from avoiding medical care out of fear that their information could be shared for immigration purposes. Public health advocates and local leaders called the injunction a key protection for clinics and hospitals, warning that immigration checks tied to health data could push people out of preventive care. They also noted that untreated illness can raise costs for states and local systems.

Federal officials counter that data tools are vital to national enforcement and fraud prevention, but the court’s early ruling suggests the policy could face a long legal road. As the lawsuits proceed, the DOJ says designated jurisdictions can submit written responses and policy updates for review. That process could lead to changes on the list. Still, many local officials have signaled they will not retreat from laws they say keep crime reporting strong and protect families with mixed immigration status.

Important takeaway: The legal outcomes will shape whether the federal government can tie broad grant conditions to local immigration cooperation or whether anti-commandeering protections limit those federal actions.

What residents should know in Seattle and statewide

• The DOJ’s designation does not change anyone’s immigration status. It is a federal label aimed at city and state policies.
• Possible funding cuts are not automatic. Courts have often paused or limited federal attempts to withhold grants when local policies are at stake.
• Police in Washington generally do not ask about immigration status under state law.
• Seattle’s “Welcoming City” ordinance limits questions about immigration status by city workers unless required by law.
• If you have a pending case with ICE or in immigration court, speak with a qualified attorney about how federal-local cooperation may affect custody or detainers.
• Community programs offering housing, health care, or legal aid remain available under current city and state rules, unless a court or legislature changes those rules.

For employers, schools, and hospitals, the immediate concern is data sharing:
– The Medicaid data injunction means Washington agencies cannot share that health data for immigration enforcement while the case continues.
– Agencies and providers should follow state guidance on privacy safeguards and staff training.

Outlook and what to expect next

Policy specialists expect more updates this year. The DOJ says it will review sanctuary jurisdictions often and may add or remove places based on local changes. Courts will play a central role:

• If judges reaffirm the anti-commandeering doctrine as in earlier cases, efforts to tie broad grant programs to immigration cooperation could face steep hurdles.
• If courts side with the federal position, cities and states could have to choose between federal dollars and local rules.

For now, Seattle and Washington insist they will defend their laws. The DOJ’s designation sets up a clear test of how far the federal government can go in pressing local governments to assist with immigration enforcement and how firmly local leaders will stand by policies they say keep communities safer.

VisaVerge.com reports that similar clashes in past years led to mixed results, with several courts faulting broad funding conditions while allowing targeted, lawfully crafted measures. As both sides prepare for more hearings, residents and local agencies should expect frequent updates—and a legal fight that will likely stretch well into late 2025 and beyond.