Pierce County affirms limits on county involvement in federal immigration enforcement after contentious debate

The Pierce County Council on Tuesday adopted Resolution R2025-139S, a measure affirming the county’s commitment to public safety, equity and inclusive access to county services for immigrants, refugees and all residents, after a heated public hearing and amendment process. The final vote was 4-3.

The resolution reaffirms compliance with Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act, directs separately elected county offices to publish policies consistent with state law, and asks that those policies be presented to the Health and Human Services Committee by Aug. 31, 2025. The measure does not change criminal law or grant immunity; it aims to clarify local procedures when federal immigration authorities seek county cooperation.

Why it matters: Supporters said the resolution reassures immigrants that county services, courts and hospitals remain accessible and that fear of immigration enforcement will not keep victims and witnesses from reporting crimes. Opponents, including the elected sheriff, argued the resolution could impede law enforcement cooperation, endanger public safety or create a false sense of security.

What the council considered Council staff Andrea Kelly briefed members that the resolution aligns Pierce County policy with the Keep Washington Working Act (engrossed second substitute Senate Bill 5497, effective May 21, 2019) and court-related protections in the Courts Open to All Act (substitute House Bill 2567). Kelly said the proposed resolution encourages separately elected officials to adopt and publish policies consistent with state and federal law and requires those policies to be presented to the council by Aug. 31, 2025.

County Executive Ryan Mello said the measure reaffirms that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and stated it intends to ensure residents feel safe accessing county services. "This is my attempt to do my part to communicate about the policies of the departments that I am charged to oversee," he told the council.

Contentious testimony and amendments Sheriff Keith Swank testified strongly against the proposal, arguing the resolution would weaken enforcement and could jeopardize federal funding. "Vision 0 is founded on a false and dangerous assumption... Lawbreakers, not a lack of regulations, are the primary cause of injury and death on our roads," Swank said in his earlier remarks on a different agenda item; during immigration remarks he said local cooperation that violates federal law could carry consequences ranging from fines to loss of federal funds.

At the dais, Council member Herrera offered an amendment intended to clarify that the resolution does not prevent local cooperation with state or federal agencies on criminal investigations and task forces, and he pressed for language that makes clear a local agency may cooperate when in possession of a judicially authorized criminal warrant based on probable cause. Council member Ayala further amended that language to reference warrants and to tie task force cooperation to investigations into organized crime that create unsafe environments.

The council approved the Herrera amendment as amended (the amendment to the amendment cleared the council by voice vote and the amended amendment passed). A second, separate amendment proposed by Council member Morrell (council amendment 2) to substantially narrow and simplify the resolution failed on a 3-4 vote.

Public hearing and community response The public hearing lasted many hours and drew scores of speakers in person and online. Supporters—church leaders, immigrant-rights advocates, health-care workers, union representatives and many residents—urged passage. Typical comments included personal stories of fear about reporting crimes, the importance of due process and the central role immigrants play in the local economy.

Opponents worried the measure would signal governmental tolerance of undocumented residence and contended the council should prioritize resources such as road and bridge repairs and public safety staffing. Several speakers pointed to federal roles in immigration enforcement and urged stronger border and immigration measures rather than local noncooperation.

Final vote and outcome In a roll-call vote the council approved R2025-139S, 4-3: Council members Ayala, Yambi, Denson and Hitchin voted yes; Council members Kuver (Kruger), Morrell and Herrera voted no. The resolution includes a requirement that separately elected officials present policies consistent with state and federal law by Aug. 31, 2025, and it affirms the county’s intent to comply with state statutory guidance.

Officials present Sheriff Keith Swank and Prosecuting Attorney (transcript: Mary Robin Net) also addressed the council. The county’s executive office recommended approval; the executive’s directive on federal immigration enforcement was distributed to departments as background during the session.

What it does and does not do The resolution affirms the county’s commitment to compliance with Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act and directs a transparent approach by county departments and separately elected officials. It does not alter state or federal immigration law; it does not direct any department to refuse to cooperate when legally required; and it does not change how criminal investigations are conducted when judicially authorized warrants exist.