Washington Lawmakers Propose Restrictions on ICE in Schools and Health Facilities

Feb 18, 2026, 2:41 AM
Image for article Washington Lawmakers Propose Restrictions on ICE in Schools and Health Facilities

Hover over text to view sources

Washington state lawmakers are making strides toward implementing new restrictions on federal immigration agents' access to schools and health facilities. The legislation, known as the Secure and Accountable Federal Enforcement (SAFE) Act, recently passed the state Senate and seeks to enhance protections for immigrant families amidst rising concerns about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in these sensitive environments.
The SAFE Act mandates that ICE must obtain a judicial warrant before entering "nonpublic areas" such as preschools, K-12 schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. This requirement aims to restore a sense of safety in places that should feel secure, especially for vulnerable populations. The bill's sponsor, Senator Drew Hansen, emphasized the importance of ensuring that individuals feel safe accessing essential services without the looming threat of immigration enforcement.
The legislation builds upon the Keep Washington Working Act, a 2019 law that limited cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. While the original act provided some protections, it did not extend to daycares or nonpublic hospitals, which the current bill aims to address. Hansen remarked that the new measure is crucial as it reflects ongoing concerns about ICE's operational reach, particularly after unconfirmed reports of ICE presence led to lockdowns at several Seattle schools last month.
Supporters of the SAFE Act argue that it aligns with constitutional protections, notably the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. By requiring a court-approved warrant, the bill aims to fortify the rights of individuals in nonpublic spaces. Hansen stated, "Those are well-established Constitutional Fourth Amendment principles," expressing confidence that the bill would withstand potential legal challenges.
However, the proposal has faced opposition from some Republican lawmakers. Senator Jeff Holy voiced concerns that the legislation might obstruct federal investigations and labeled it a "ruse." He expressed that it is Congress's responsibility to address immigration enforcement rather than the state legislature's. Critics argue that the focus should remain on educational performance metrics instead of legislation perceived as a distraction from pressing educational issues.
The SAFE Act also prohibits early learning providers and school district employees from collecting information regarding the immigration statuses of students and their families. This aspect of the bill aims to alleviate fears that families might avoid essential services due to concerns about their immigration status being reported to authorities. Data indicates that approximately a quarter of early childhood educators in the state are immigrants, underscoring the importance of these protections for both students and educators alike.
As the legislation progresses, it will move to the House for further consideration. If passed and signed by Governor Bob Ferguson, the SAFE Act would take effect immediately, signifying a significant shift in how Washington state safeguards the rights of its immigrant residents.
In tandem with the legislative efforts, King County Executive Girmay Zahilay has signed an executive order aimed at prohibiting immigration enforcement agents from accessing nonpublic county property, reflecting a broader commitment to protecting immigrant communities within the state.
As discussions continue, the outcome of the SAFE Act will likely resonate beyond Washington, potentially influencing similar legislative measures in other states grappling with immigration enforcement issues in sensitive spaces.
The SAFE Act presents a crucial opportunity for Washington lawmakers to assert their stance on immigration policy, especially as communities remain vigilant in the face of increasing federal immigration actions.
With the legislative session underway, stakeholders are hopeful for a positive outcome that could offer much-needed reassurance to immigrant families across the state.

Related articles

Georgia Lawmakers Take Initial Steps to Revamp Public Health System

Georgia lawmakers are exploring reform recommendations to streamline the state's public health system amidst historical underfunding. A legislative committee has proposed several measures aimed at improving the efficiency and funding of public health services, emphasizing the need for increased local contributions and better resource allocation.

Federal Judge Orders Continued Public Health Funding for Colorado

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration must continue funding public health grants in Colorado, preventing the loss of approximately $22 million. This decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Colorado and three other states aimed at blocking the administration's funding cuts.

Minnesota Sues Over CDC's $42 Million Public Health Funding Cuts

Minnesota's Attorney General Keith Ellison has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting more than $42 million in public health grants. The lawsuit argues that these cuts threaten vital public health services and violate constitutional protections.

Colorado Lawmakers Tackle 'Ghost Networks' to Improve Mental Health Access

Colorado lawmakers are addressing the issue of 'ghost networks' in mental health care through new legislation aimed at improving access to services. House Bill 1002 requires insurance companies to verify provider listings and includes measures to expand the mental health workforce.

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Public Health Funding Cuts to Colorado

A federal judge has intervened to stop the Trump administration from cutting approximately $600 million in public health grants to Colorado and three other Democratic-led states. The funding cuts, which health officials warn could severely impact crucial health programs, were challenged in court by state attorneys general.