A UW law professor explains what Washingtonians need to know about their constitutional rights during protests and federal actions.
As federal immigration enforcement actions draw scrutiny nationwide, a University of Washington constitutional law expert is weighing in on what rights Washingtonians have during protests, police encounters and potential federal operations in the state.
On Monday, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson and Attorney General Nick Brown spoke at the state Capitol, condemning federal ICE operations and announcing they sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem saying that Washington would take action if enforcement escalates here.The comments come amid unrest in Minneapolis after federal immigration agents shot and killed a man during protests over the weekend, an incident that has sparked widespread demonstrations and criticism of federal tactics.This morning on Good Day Seattle, we spoke to University of Washington assistant professor of law, Jeremiah Chin, who specializes in constitutional law. Ferguson and Brown said Washington state cannot prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement from operating in the state but would pursue legal action on the state level if federal agents act unlawfully. State leaders have also called recent actions by the Department of Homeland Security unconstitutional. FOX 13 Seattle asked Chin if he agrees with the governor’s and attorney general’s claims about DHS."I would think so because the Constitution not only provides that the federal government and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, but that any executive action has to comply with some kind of congressional authorization," said Chin. "So whatever statute or whatever law that is enabling ICE to take these actions, they would have to defend that against a letter of that law. And so, there’s a lot of room for the state attorney general and the state to challenge the federal uses of its power and law.""When they’re not invited at all, it creates an interesting question because the closest we’ve seen to this stuff is around the time of the Antebellum period in the United States, where the civil rights and the war over slavery was about to get started — where states were asserting their right to keep the federal government out, and the federal governor was asserting its right to come in. Then we see this occurring again in the civil rights movements of the mid-20th century," said Chin. "And now we’re seeing it at the opposite end of the spectrum — where states are trying to protect their citizens and protect all citizens of their civil rights against the federal government and intrusion, and I think the easiest way to do that is to hold the federal government accountable to its own laws and Constitution."FOX 13 Seattle then asked what actions by federal officers or troops would be considered illegal and what authority state or local law enforcement would have to intervene if those actions occur."Well, we can ensure compliance with what the Constitution requires and what the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to require, including stuff like requiring a warrant, requiring probable cause for entry into a home, and defining those limits more clearly," said Chin. "The recent memos that’s been circulation and linked that ICE officers and agents might not need a warrant to enter a home if they have some suspicion of immigration activity, is pretty blatantly unconstitutional and doesn’t comply with not only the Supreme Court’s rulings on this issue, but even our own local restrictions on local law enforcement that the Washington State Constitution protects against.""I would say first and foremost, the constitutional rights assured in these situations where law enforcement officers are attempting to enter a home or attempting to question apply to all persons. So, all persons have the right to remain silent, all persons have the right to be secure in their homes, papers and effects, and any federal officers would still be required to show a judicially authorized warrant to enter a home or to inquire into that space," said Chin."So the rights that people can assert is the right to remain silent, the right to speak to an attorney, their right to seek counsel, and any other kind of protection that the law provides," he continued.FOX 13 Seattle then asked about federal assertions that agents may conduct no-knock entries into homes based on claims of an immediate threat, citing statements from the White House."I would, first of all, ask for any evidence of any existing clear and present danger, because most of what we’re seeing is a lot of rhetoric and scare tactics that are being levied against particularly marginalized populations in order to frighten people into advanced compliance with the law, because the level of enforcement that they’re hoping for is far beyond even the funding schemes of the federal government," said Chin."Second of all, I would also remind people that the assertion of your constitutional rights is required by the system. So vocally and affirmatively stating your right to remain silent is entirely within the authority and boundaries of the law," he continued. "And that would stand up before any kind of judicial enforcement authority that is seeking to legitimize or authorize this level of intrusion."A major topic of conversation after the latest border patrol killing in Minnesota involves the Second Amendment. Everything that we saw shows that Alex Pretti was a legal gun owner, he had a concealed weapon on him."The Washington State Constitution provides this individual the right to bear arms on a different level than the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And based on the way that the Supreme Court has been interpreting the Second Amendment after Bruen and its most recent line of cases, the state regulation of guns has to comply with the history tradition of gun ownership local to the state. Washington’s own history and tradition of gun regulation and gun enforcement would protect people in not only securing their homes, papers and effects, but also in possessing those firearms. So, any kind of ICE seizure or federal intrusion wouldn’t stand up to the federal or state Constitutions," said Chin.FOX 13 Seattle asked what the constitutional right to peacefully assemble means in practice, including its legal limits and what protesters should keep in mind."I would advise protesters to exercise their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble, to protest, to voice their concerns against the federal government, against the state government or against those issues that are meaningful to them," said Chin. "But the federal Supreme Court and the Washington State Supreme Court have recognized what they call ‘time, place and manner regulations’. So, they can say no protesting loudly after hours, no protesting in certain locations – like in a school zone that might be dangerous or inhibit the school activities of students – then we would have to investigate whether or not any enforcement officers that are limiting the protest are really using those time, place and manner restrictions as a pretext to silence or stop or chill speech in any kind of meaningful way," he continued. "So my advice would be to exercise your rights but also be prepared to defend the means at which you are protesting and advocating for your rights." Trump announces federal funding cuts for sanctuary cities and states, including WAWSDOT estimates $40-50 million to repair Washington roads after historic floodingThurston County death investigation upgraded to homicide, suspect in custodyGov. Ferguson calls for millionaires’ tax in State of the State addressReport reveals which Costco items can pay for the annual membershipTo get the best local news, weather and sports in Seattle for free, sign up for the daily FOX Seattle Newsletter.Download the free FOX LOCAL app for mobile in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store for live Seattle news, top stories, weather updates and more local and national news.
Wa News Immigration Crime Publicsafety Bob Ferguson Us
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Maximum Damage and Massacre: ICE Kills, ICE LiesAbby Zimet has written CD's Further column since 2008. A longtime, award-winning journalist, she moved to the Maine woods in the early 70s, where she spent a dozen years building a house, hauling water and writing before moving to Portland.
Read more »
ICE Barbie on Thin Ice With Trump and Miller Over Bovino ‘Miscalculation’Fatal shootings and warring lieutenants have turned Trump’s deportation drive into a crisis.
Read more »
'Moral and Political Debacle': Right-Wing Media, CEOs Urge Trump to Stop Deadly ICE CrackdownBrett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
Read more »
Karoline Leavitt: President Trump Supports the Right to Bear Arms, Not Impede ICESource of breaking news and analysis, insightful commentary and original reporting, curated and written specifically for the new generation of independent and conservative thinkers.
Read more »
'I would want ICE out': Denver mayor promises to protect residents if ICE comes to ColoradoColette Bordelon is a reporter with Denver7.
Read more »
‘ICE Killed Him’: Arlington Family Asks ICE to Release Detained Father for Son’s FuneralMaher Tarabishi was detained by ICE in October, a traumatic event that his family believes affected the health of his disabled son.
Read more »