Editor's Note: The DHS list has since been pulled down after backlash and reports of inaccuracies.
The Trump administration just dropped a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website that published the list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” across the country — cities, counties and states that have policies saying they won’t help the federal government enforce immigration law.
The entire state of Washington made the list, as did Spokane County.
Shockingly, the city of Spokane, which passed a resolution early this year affirming their commitment to following the state’s Keep Washington Working Act (KWWA) — the sanctuary law that prohibits city staff and law enforcement from collaborating with immigration officials — did not.
The Washington section of the DHS list notes that the whole state “self-identifies” as a sanctuary jurisdiction, then lists 35 of the 39 counties in the state and five cities, Everett, Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle and Yakima.
Adams, Douglas, Klickitat and Yakima Counties were the only counties left off the list, which sort of makes sense — at least for two of the four.
Adams County is currently being sued by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office for collaborating with ICE. The Adams County Sheriff has also vocally opposed the KWWA. Klickitat County’s sheriff has also vowed to break state law and collaborate with the feds, even going as far as to tell Trump’s border czar Tom Homan to put him on speed dial.
It’s less clear how Douglas and Yakima counties avoided the list. Yakima’s sheriff has emphasized his commitment to state law, and Douglas County has largely stayed out of the news, with its sheriff refusing to comment on whether he would help ICE. (However, the leadership of Douglas County, Colorado has been very vocal about being against sanctuary policies so maybe the administration confused the states?)
Conversely, Clark and Grant counties in Washington, which the state AG found to have worked together with ICE hundreds of times, were still included in the list of sanctuary jurisdictions.
Other jurisdictions across the country have also argued today that the list is inaccurate and includes even cities and counties that have voiced support for Trump’s immigration policies.
According to DHS, inclusion on the list was determined by “factors like compliance with federal law enforcement, information restrictions, and legal protections for illegal aliens.”
Ok, but what really is a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’?
The statement on the DHS website claims that sanctuary jurisdictions “are deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities [sic]. Sanctuary cities protect dangerous criminal aliens from facing consequences and put law enforcement in peril.”
Legally, the question of what “sanctuary” means is pretty murky, though. There’s no official legal designation for “sanctuary city,” but sanctuary is typically used as a term to describe policies that afford protection to undocumented immigrants.
In Washington, the KWWA “restricts the extent to which local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) may participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws,” according to the AG’s office. It limits the information law enforcement, like county sheriffs or city police departments, can share with federal officers, like those with ICE or Border Patrol, and prevents them from asking to see a person’s documentation status unless there’s a direct connection to the violation of a state or local law.
It also keeps state resources from being spent on federal enforcement — a right protected by the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution prevents the federal government from commanding the states’ officers — which functionally means immigrants arrested by federal agents can’t be housed in city, county or state facilities like jails and have to be taken to a federal detention center. In Spokane’s case, this often results in immigrants being housed in Idaho’s Kootenai County Jail, which has an operating agreement with the federal agencies.
Statewide or local sanctuary policies can’t stop federal agents from enforcing federal immigration law, or protect immigrants who are arrested on those federal charges then deported, but they do make it harder for the federal government to conduct mass deportations.
So, is Spokane city a sanctuary jurisdiction?
Because there is no clear legal definition for what is and isn’t a sanctuary jurisdiction, and by the common definition, everywhere in the whole state is a sanctuary jurisdiction, the answer is complicated.
We reached out to local officials at the city, the county and Spokane Valley to ask their perspective on the list and the jurisdictions that were included.
In the case of Spokane city, leaders vocally support following state law. Spokane Police Chief Kevin Hall released a statement that Spokane Police Department officers would not be collaborating with federal officers, and the city council passed a resolution reaffirming their commitment to state law with a 5-2 vote. Recently, Council Member Lili Navarrete proposed an ordinance that would limit the ability of ICE to arrest immigrants on park property.
Because of these policy decisions, conservative council member Jonathan Bingle told RANGE he was “surprised” Spokane didn’t make the list.
“Even though you never say the word ‘sanctuary,’ doesn’t mean that you’re not enforcing sanctuary policies,” Bingle said. “When we’re saying we don’t want our law enforcement collaborating with federal enforcement, we’re clearly a sanctuary city even though we’re not saying the word city.”
Council Member Michael Cathcart, who joined Bingle in voting no on the resolution to reaffirm the KWWA, wrote in a text that, “It seems like a mistake that Spokane was omitted; however, what would be even more helpful and likely drive greater compliance is for the federal government to offer clearer guidance on the penalties or adverse actions they intend to pursue.”
City progressives agreed with Bingle and Cathcart on at least one thing: they were surprised that the city was left off the list. Navarette said she was “perplexed” by the list, and city spokesperson Erin Hut said she didn’t know why the city wasn’t listed but the county was.
Still, they both said that the city isn’t technically a sanctuary city; it just follows state law.
“Resolutions have been passed in favor of the KWWA, but our rule is that we follow state and federal law,” Hut said. “I think a lot of people have seen the action taken by the council and see Spokane as a sanctuary city. The perception is that we are, but the law doesn’t state that. I don’t even know what the parameters are from the Trump administration to classify cities as sanctuary cities.”
The DHS website says Washington is a sanctuary state because it “self-identifies as one.” Hut said no one from the Trump administration had contacted the city to ask if the city considered itself a sanctuary city.
Council Member Paul Dillon was more blunt about DHS’ exclusion of the city: “I don’t think they’re very good at their jobs,” he said. “But I always return to: there’s no legal definition of ‘sanctuary.’”
What’s going on with the county’s inclusion?
If things are confusing at the city — they proposed legislation to protect undocumented immigrants and publicly state their support for state sanctuary law while still arguing they aren’t a sanctuary city — it’s even more complicated in the county.
Multiple jurisdictions, including Spokane city, exist within the county boundaries. And while Spokane city affirmed its support for state law, Spokane Valley, another jurisdiction within county lines, did the opposite: passing a nonbinding resolution that basically stated they were explicitly not a sanctuary city. Spokane Valley Council Member Jessica Yaeger consulted earlier this spring at the White House with DHS officials. After that meeting, she introduced a resolution at the April 1 council meeting that did two things: 1) it said it would follow state law, and 2) stated Spokane Valley was not a sanctuary city. Spokane Valley was also not included on the list.
The council passed it that night.
Yaeger specified in the meeting and in a later phone interview with RANGE one reason she drafted the resolution was to ingratiate Spokane Valley with the Trump administration so it wouldn’t lose funding.
Speaking to RANGE, she brought up Tren de Aragua (TDA), a Venezuelan gang the Trump administration has accused immigrants of being members of based on tattoos that have no confirmed connection with the gang.
“Our citizens should be safe and free from TDA members,” she said. “They’re criminals. They’re violent, violent murderers.”
Some immigrants accused of being TDA members have been arrested in Spokane County.
The Spokane Valley Police Department has been expanding, partly through the use of American Rescue Plan funding, as the council has argued its police force has not kept pace with the city’s population growth. It hired 10 new full-time officers over the last year and wants to hire more.
But the Spokane Valley Police Department is under the umbrella of the county sheriff, so if the Trump administration follows through on canceling federal grants for what it deems sanctuary jurisdictions, Spokane Valley could be at risk of losing the funding Yaeger said she wanted to preserve.
Yaeger did not respond to a request for comment.
When asked directly by InvestigateWest whether he would follow state law or collaborate with federal immigration officers, Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels gave conflicting answers. He wrote that his office “will comply with state laws, including the Keep Washington Working Act,” but also included a longer response that is more complex:
“If federal authorities request our assistance and they are willing to provide the proper federal authority to my deputies, I would consider assisting them (federal agencies) with identifying and detaining illegal immigrants who are committing crimes in Spokane County.
I would add that I urge our U.S. legislature to address our national immigration policy, which has been broken for years and throughout several administrations. I believe the process to LEGALLY enter our country and become a productive citizen of our country should be streamlined, providing good and law-abiding people with a reasonable pathway to citizenship.”
We reached out to county officials to see if they were notified Spokane Count was on the listand Yaeger, but did not hear back by press time. We will update this story if they respond.
What does being on the list mean for the county?
So far, the DHS website doesn’t include any clear guidance on penalties.
“Each jurisdiction listed will receive formal notification of its non-compliance with Federal statutes,” reads a statement at the top of the sanctuary jurisdiction list. “DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens. Note that the list can be reviewed and changed at any time and will be updated regularly. No one should act on this information without conducting their own evaluation of the information.”
Reporting from the Associated Press states that the Trump administration intends to remove federal funding and grants from jurisdictions on the list if they are notified of their inclusion on the list and do not comply.
However, Washington is already suing the federal government for previous threats to withhold federal funding over the KWWA, so this will likely continue to get fought out in court.
