Immigration enforcement

AN ACT Relating to remedies for violations of federal 1
constitutional rights occurring during immigration enforcement; 2
adding a new section to chapter 4.24 RCW; creating new sections; and 3
declaring an emergency. 4
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:5
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds and declares that:6
(1) Since the earliest days of the nation, the United States 7
supreme court has held, in cases such as Little v. Barreme , 6 U.S. 8
170 (1804), and Murray v. The Charming Betsey , 6 U.S. 64 (1804), that 9
federal officials may be liable in damages for violations of federal 10
laws. 11
(2) The United States supreme court has long held that federal 12
employees are not inherently beyond the reach of state laws simply 13
because they are federal employees. For example, in Johnson v. 14
Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920), the court noted, "[A]n employee of the 15
United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while 16
acting in the course of his employment," and in Colorado v. Symes , 17
286 U.S. 510 (1932), the court stated, "Federal officers and 18
employees are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity 19
from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law."20
H-2999.1
HOUSE BILL 2597
State of Washington 69th Legislature 2026 Regular Session
By Representatives Thai, Fosse, Simmons, Parshley, Gregerson, Santos,
Ramel, Stearns, Goodman, Obras, Peterson, Cortes, Doglio, Ormsby,
Pollet, Scott, Ryu, Nance, and Salahuddin
Read first time 01/20/26. Referred to Committee on Civil Rights &
Judiciary.
p. 1 HB 2597
(3) Decades later, the United States supreme court continued to 1
recognize the role of state law in holding federal officials 2
accountable for legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v. Wheeler , 373 3
U.S. 647 (1963), "[w]hen it comes to suits for damages for abuse of 4
power, federal officials are usually governed by local law."5
(4) When the United States supreme court recognized a federal law 6
cause of action for violation of certain constitutional rights in 7
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 8
that cause of action was in addition to, rather than instead of, 9
traditional state law remedies. Even one of the dissenting justices 10
in Bivens noted the ongoing role of state law, writing, "The task of 11
evaluating the pros and cons of creating judicial remedies for 12
particular wrongs is a matter for Congress and the legislatures of 13
the States." 14
(5) More recently, congress has made federal statutory law the 15
exclusive remedy for certain claims sounding in tort, but this 16
exclusivity specifically "does not extend or apply to a civil action 17
against an employee of the Government... which is brought for a 18
violation of the Constitution of the United States..." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 19
2679. The prime sponsor of legislation amending the federal tort 20
claims act to provide for limited exclusivity took pains to clarify, 21
"We make special provisions here to make clear that the more 22
controversial issue of constitutional torts is not covered by this 23
bill. If you are accused of having violated someone's constitutional 24
rights, this bill does not affect it." 134 Cong. Rec. 15963 (1988).25
(6) In 2022, in declining to extend the scope of the Bivens 26
action in Egbert v. Boule , 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the United States 27
supreme court observed that legislatures, not courts, are the better 28
branches of government to fashion damages remedies.29
(7) In its most recently completed term, the United States 30
supreme court declined, in Martin v. United States , 145 S. Ct. 1689 31
(2025), to extend the doctrine of supremacy clause immunity beyond 32
its traditional criminal law context. 33
(8) Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of 34
the United States has never been and can never be "necessary and 35
proper" to the execution of the laws and powers of the United States 36
within the meaning of Article I, section 8, clause 18 of the United 37
States Constitution. 38
p. 2 HB 2597
(9) In enacting this act, Washington affirms its longstanding and 1
rightful role as a sovereign state in providing a forum in its courts 2
for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations.3
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 4.24 RCW 4
to read as follows: 5
(1)(a) A person who is injured during civil immigration 6
enforcement by any government agent who, whether or not under color 7
of law, violates the United States Constitution while participating 8
in civil immigration enforcement, may bring a civil action against 9
the government agent in any court. 10
(b) A person found to have violated the United States 11
Constitution while participating in civil immigration enforcement is 12
liable to the injured person for legal relief, equitable relief, and 13
any other appropriate relief. A prevailing plaintiff may recover 14
compensatory and punitive damages. 15
(2)(a) In an action brought pursuant to this section, a court 16
shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing 17
plaintiff. In actions for injunctive relief, a court shall deem a 18
plaintiff to have prevailed if the plaintiff's suit was a substantial 19
factor or significant catalyst in obtaining the results sought by the 20
litigation. 21
(b) When a judgment is entered in favor of a defendant, the court 22
may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the defendant for 23
defending any claims the court finds frivolous. 24
(3) To the maximum extent permissible under the United States and 25
Washington Constitutions, a grant of any immunity to a defendant 26
including, but not limited to, sovereign immunity, official immunity, 27
intergovernmental immunity, qualified immunity, supremacy clause 28
immunity, statutory immunity, or common law immunity, does not apply 29
in any action brought pursuant to this section. 30
(4) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this 31
section unless the context clearly requires otherwise.32
(a) "Civil immigration enforcement" means any action to 33
investigate, question, detain, transfer, arrest, or remove any person 34
for the purpose of enforcing civil immigration law.35
(b) "Government agent" means any officer, employee, contractor, 36
or other agent of any local or state government, or of the United 37
States federal government, whose duties include: (i) The enforcement 38
p. 3 HB 2597
of local, state, or federal laws; (ii) the maintenance of public 1
safety or order; or (iii) local, state, or national defense.2
(5) A civil action described in this section must be commenced 3
within three years after the cause of action accrues.4
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. If any provision of this act or its 5
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 6
remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other 7
persons or circumstances is not affected.8
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. If any part of this act is found to be in 9
conflict with federal requirements that are a prescribed condition to 10
the allocation of federal funds to the state, the conflicting part of 11
this act is inoperative solely to the extent of the conflict and with 12
respect to the agencies directly affected, and this finding does not 13
affect the operation of the remainder of this act in its application 14
to the agencies concerned. Rules adopted under this act must meet 15
federal requirements that are a necessary condition to the receipt of 16
federal funds by the state.17
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. This act is necessary for the immediate 18
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of 19
the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes 20
effect immediately.21
--- END ---
p. 4 HB 2597