(KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON) King County is asking a court to loosen a long-standing citizenship requirement for hiring corrections officers, in a move that could reshape who is allowed to work inside the county’s jails. The county’s Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the current rule, which says applicants must be U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. The case grows out of a hiring scandal in which jail officials admitted they had illegally hired 38 non-citizens as corrections officers, and it now raises larger questions about who should be allowed to hold these sensitive jobs in a county with a large immigrant population.
Current written standards and what the lawsuit asks for
The legal dispute centers on written hiring standards that the department still has in place. Under current policy, a person who wants to become a corrections officer in a King County jail must be:
- “a U.S. Citizen, Lawful Permanent Resident, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipient,”
- and must also be legally allowed to work in the United States.
These standards are checked as part of a broad background review that happens before someone is officially hired. By going to court, county officials are not denying that these rules exist; instead, they are asking a judge to let them change how these rules apply, or possibly remove the citizenship condition altogether, while still following federal employment law.
Background: the hiring scandal and its fallout
The lawsuit follows public fallout from the discovery that the department had hired 38 non-citizens into corrections officer positions, in violation of federal employment eligibility rules. Those hires did not meet the stated citizenship requirement, yet they were brought on to work in the jails.
Once the problem became known, it not only put a spotlight on King County’s hiring practices, but also led many residents to ask whether the strict citizenship rule is needed, and how it should interact with federal rules that control who can legally work in the country. The case now before the court is the county’s attempt to address that conflict through a formal legal process rather than through quiet internal changes.
What the county is seeking (and limits it accepts)
County lawyers have not publicly released a detailed legal roadmap for what they want the new standard to be, or exactly how they want the court to rewrite or suspend the citizenship rule. What is clear from the filing, according to early descriptions, is that King County wants more flexibility to consider job candidates who do not fit neatly into the current list of allowed immigration categories, as long as they can legally work.
The county’s position reflects a broader tension between local hiring goals and federal employment checks, which typically run through processes such as the federal employment verification system that relies on documents also used with Form I-9 for new hires. Official guidance on that verification process is available from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at Form I-9.
Arguments in favor of changing the rule
Supporters of changing the citizenship requirement contend that the scandal actually revealed how out of step the current rule has become with the county’s workforce needs. Their points include:
- In King County many residents were born in other countries and hold a variety of legal statuses.
- The rule limiting applicants to citizens, permanent residents, and DACA recipients excludes many people who could otherwise pass background checks and meet all other standards.
- The county is not contesting the federal rule that all workers must be legally allowed to work; rather, it questions whether local policy should add a separate citizenship bar on top of that federal test.
Arguments against changing the rule
Others view the existing rule as a basic safeguard. Their concerns include:
- Corrections officers hold positions of public trust and oversee people in government custody, which some argue justifies a firm citizenship requirement.
- The prior hiring of 38 non-citizens is interpreted by critics not as proof the standard is flawed, but as evidence the department failed to follow its own controls and federal law.
- From this perspective, the lawsuit could be seen as an attempt to legalize behavior that was previously recognized as illegal hiring.
Internal department response and recruitment pressures
Within the department, the controversy has forced leaders to revisit the entire hiring process.
- The requirement that applicants be legally able to work in the U.S. is enforced through detailed pre-employment background checks.
- Officials now face pressure to show that these checks are strict, transparent, and correctly applied.
- At the same time, many jails (including King County’s) struggle to recruit and retain enough corrections officers, creating staffing pressure that factors into debates about limiting who may apply.
Broader implications for local hiring and immigration categories
The case also touches on how local governments in the United States handle workers with varied immigration statuses.
- The current King County rule singles out lawful permanent residents and DACA recipients but excludes other groups, illustrating how local policies sometimes mirror—and sometimes exceed—the federal employment test.
- Analysis by VisaVerge.com notes that disputes like this show how localities wrestle with aligning hiring rules to the complex mix of federal immigration categories, which may not match local labor realities.
What the outcome could mean for job seekers and the public
For non-citizen job seekers, the lawsuit could determine whether they can realistically consider careers as corrections officers:
- If the county wins, the list of who may apply might expand, letting more non-citizen residents with legal work authorization pursue these jobs.
- If the county loses, the existing citizenship requirement will remain, and the department will likely face demands to prove it can strictly follow that rule.
The legal challenge also affects public confidence:
Some residents may worry that prior hiring of 38 non-citizens indicates lax rule enforcement.
Others may view the county’s decision to disclose the problem and seek court guidance as an attempt to clean up a confusing system rather than ignore the law.
How the court rules will shape future hiring and the public’s trust in the county’s efforts to fix mistakes.
Current status and what to watch for
- King County continues to operate under the current written rules while the case proceeds.
- The department is maintaining broad background checks that include work authorization.
- The lawsuit itself does not suspend the citizenship requirement; it is a request for the court’s permission to change that rule within the boundaries of federal law.
As the legal process unfolds, the debate over who should be allowed to serve as corrections officers in King County is likely to continue, reflecting broader questions about how local governments define public service in communities with widely varying immigration statuses.
This Article in a Nutshell
King County sued to challenge a written policy requiring corrections officer applicants be U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or DACA recipients after revealing 38 non-citizen hires. The county seeks court permission to consider additional legally work-authorized candidates while maintaining federal employment verification. Supporters argue the rule excludes qualified local residents; opponents stress public-trust roles justify citizenship limits. The ruling could broaden applicant pools or reinforce strict local citizenship requirements, affecting recruitment and public confidence.
