OLYMPIA, WA & SALEM, OR – In a defiant stand against federal pressure, the governors of Oregon and Washington have unequivocally rejected demands from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to dismantle their states’ long-standing sanctuary laws. This recent development signals a deepening constitutional clash between the states and the federal government over immigration enforcement, with both sides bracing for prolonged legal battles.
Federal Ultimatum: Threats and Accusations
Last week, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued stern letters to over a dozen states and numerous cities, including Oregon, Washington, Portland, and Seattle, identified as having “sanctuary policies” that, according to her office, impede federal immigration enforcement. Bondi’s missives carried significant threats: a potential loss of crucial federal funding and the possibility of criminal prosecution for state and local officials deemed to be obstructing federal immigration efforts. She asserted that such policies “impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” demanding that jurisdictions commit to eliminating these laws by August 19 or face legal consequences. This aggressive stance reflects the Trump administration’s consistent prioritization of stringent immigration policies and its intent to compel states into active cooperation with federal deportation efforts.
A Resounding Rejection from the Northwest
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Washington Governor Bob Ferguson responded forcefully to Bondi’s ultimatum, both firmly stating their refusal to back down. In a letter to Bondi, Governor Kotek underscored that Oregon’s nearly 40-year-old sanctuary policies, which were the first of their kind nationally, do not “thwart” federal immigration enforcement. She asserted that Oregon public officials and law enforcement officers have consistently complied with federal law while upholding state statutes. Kotek emphasized Oregon’s sovereign right to govern itself, stating, “The state does not take on the additional expense or burden to perform federal immigration enforcement, as it is the job of the federal government.” Her stance echoed the sentiment of many in Oregon, where voters overwhelmingly rejected a 2018 ballot measure to repeal the state’s sanctuary status, and lawmakers further strengthened the policy in 2021 with the Sanctuary Promise Act.
Meanwhile, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson delivered an equally fiery reply, declaring that Washington State “will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations.” Ferguson, who also held a press conference to underscore his position, reiterated that Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act, passed in 2019, responsibly limits state and local resources dedicated to federal immigration enforcement without obstructing federal agents. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown supported Ferguson’s position, dismissing the federal threats as “bluster” and an intimidation tactic, but acknowledging the seriousness with which such communications from the nation’s top law enforcement officer must be treated. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson also issued a brief response, affirming the city’s compliance with all applicable federal and state laws.
The Enduring Principle of Sanctuary Laws
Sanctuary laws, broadly defined, are state or local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. In Oregon, the 1987 law (later reinforced by the 2021 Sanctuary Promise Act) prohibits state and local law enforcement from using their resources or personnel to enforce federal immigration laws without a judicial warrant. This includes restrictions on inquiring about immigration status unless directly tied to a criminal investigation, holding individuals solely for civil immigration violations, or sharing non-public personal information with federal agents. Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act, enacted in 2019, similarly restricts local authorities from inquiring about immigration status, complying with voluntary immigration holds, or providing non-public personal data to federal immigration agencies. Proponents argue these laws enhance public safety by fostering trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, encouraging individuals to report crime without fear of deportation. This trust is considered crucial for effective community policing and reducing overall crime.
Legal Battles and Constitutional Foundational Principles
This latest confrontation is not the first of its kind. During the Trump administration’s previous term, similar efforts to compel sanctuary jurisdictions to cooperate by withholding federal funding were largely unsuccessful in court. Federal judges consistently upheld the constitutional principle of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, and the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government from forcing states to enforce federal regulatory programs. Courts have ruled that while states cannot impede federal immigration enforcement, they are not obligated to expend their own resources or personnel to carry out federal duties. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield pointed out that Oregon’s sanctuary law has withstood multiple presidential administrations, including Trump’s previous term, and previous attempts to cut federal grants were rejected by judges. Recent federal lawsuits filed against other sanctuary jurisdictions, such as Chicago and Illinois, have also faced judicial dismissals, further illustrating the legal challenges the federal government faces in this area.
Public Safety, Crime, and Ongoing Debates
One of the central arguments against sanctuary policies is the claim that they endanger public safety by harboring individuals who may have committed crimes. However, a landmark study utilizing Texas criminal records found that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than U.S. citizens or legal immigrants, challenging the narrative that sanctuary jurisdictions inherently lead to increased crime. Proponents of sanctuary laws assert that these policies allow local law enforcement to focus on actual criminal activity rather than civil immigration matters, thereby making communities safer for everyone. Despite the state-level protections, federal immigration agents remain active in both Oregon and Washington, conducting arrests in various localities. This ongoing federal presence highlights the complex and often tense reality on the ground. The issue continues to fuel a heated public discourse, intertwining concerns about public safety, immigration, and state autonomy.
The Road Ahead
The steadfast refusal by Governors Kotek and Ferguson to yield to federal demands sets the stage for a protracted legal and political struggle. While the federal government has threatened litigation and funding cuts, the states appear prepared to defend their sovereignty in court, relying on established constitutional principles. The outcome of these disputes will have significant implications not only for immigration policy and enforcement but also for the broader balance of power between state and federal governments in the United States. Adding to the complexity, Marion County in Oregon recently filed its own federal lawsuit, seeking clarity on whether it can legally provide public records to immigration officials, underscoring the nuanced legal landscape and ongoing internal debates within states regarding these policies.
