This bill amends RCW 43.17.420 and RCW 10.93.160 and adds a new section to chapter 72.09 RCW to change how state and local agencies handle immigration-related information, agreements, custody, and interviews. It prohibits school resource officers and state and local law enforcement from asking about or collecting an individual’s immigration or citizenship status or place of birth (except when connected to a state or local criminal investigation or as required by law), and prohibits providing nonpublic personal information to federal immigration authorities for civil immigration enforcement except as required by law. It also bans state or local participation in federal civil immigration enforcement agreements (including 287(g) agreements) and in immigration detention agreements, requires termination of existing detention agreements by a deadline with a limited narrow exception, and bars detaining someone solely to determine immigration status or solely on the basis of a civil immigration warrant or hold request. The new section added to chapter 72.09 RCW (Sec. 3) authorizes the Department of Corrections to transfer an incarcerated person serving total confinement or community custody to federal immigration authorities at any time during the term of confinement or community custody based on an immigration detainer, hold, notification request, or civil immigration warrant; if transferred, the person’s term of confinement or community custody runs concurrently while in federal custody. The bill also establishes procedural limits on interviews by federal immigration authorities: interviews of persons in custody may not be required unless compelled by state or federal law or court order, and otherwise require written consent after being advised orally that refusal will not result in punishment or retaliation; consent forms must be available at least in English and Spanish and explained with interpreters or other language resources if needed. Legally, the measure both creates new law (the added section to chapter 72.09 RCW) and modifies existing law (amendments to RCW 43.17.420 and RCW 10.93.160 and related cross-referenced provisions). The changes are primarily procedural and administrative: they restrict information collection and sharing, prohibit certain contracts and detention agreements, set consent and notification procedures for interviews and admissions, and authorize a specific transfer procedure and concurrency of custody for DOC inmates. Exceptions are repeatedly preserved when action is required by federal or state law or by a court order. The provided extracts omit some text and cross-references needed to fully evaluate the measure. The bill repeatedly references other subsections and sections (including subsections (3)–(6) of an earlier section, section 3’s relation to other parts of the act, sections 8 and 9 of 2019 legislation, and a truncated provision about DOC allowing federal interviews) that are not included here, so those specific cross-references and any additional limitations or procedures they contain are unclear from the material provided.

If enacted, state and local police agencies, school resource officers, and public schools would stop routinely asking for or sharing people’s immigration, citizenship, or birthplace information and would have to refuse federal requests to hold or interview people for civil immigration enforcement except when a court order or specific law requires it or the person gives informed written consent (with forms at least in English and Spanish). Local governments and agencies that currently house people for federal immigration authorities would have to end those detention contracts under the deadlines in the bill or rely on a narrow pre‑2019 payment exception, which will shift responsibilities and likely the costs of detention and language services back to local providers and remove federal-provided language services and training they may have relied on. The department of corrections could still hand over people in its custody to federal immigration authorities at any point during confinement or community custody, and the person’s sentence would continue to run while in federal custody, so DOC must maintain procedures to coordinate transfers and notifications; people held by DOC cannot be detained solely to determine immigration status and cannot be forced to be interviewed except when required by law or court order, and must be told they may refuse without punishment. The bill leaves some implementation details unclear—particularly how DOC’s transfer authority interacts with the prohibitions on federal interviews and access and which earlier subsections are excluded for people in DOC custody—so agencies will need guidance to resolve those gaps.