Council adopts resolution saying Spokane Valley is not a sanctuary city after hours of public comment

The Spokane Valley City Council voted to adopt a resolution reaffirming that the city is not a sanctuary city and directing city staff and law enforcement to cooperate with federal, state and local law‑enforcement agencies "to the maximum extent available and allowable under the law."

Why it matters: The resolution prompted extensive public comment and debate about immigration enforcement, public‑safety priorities and the interplay between federal immigration law and Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act. Supporters said the resolution clarifies city policy and preserves access to federal funds; opponents said it risks eroding trust between immigrant communities and local police and could expose the city to legal challenges.

Council action and rationale: The draft resolution restates the city’s position and asks staff to ensure operations comply with applicable federal and state law. Deputy City Manager Eric Lam and Chief Dave Ellis briefed the council that the sheriff’s office and local agencies must balance federal immigration enforcement and state constraints; the resolution’s language directs city cooperation only to the extent allowed by law. City attorneys said they are prepared to analyze preemption and related constitutional questions if council directs further review.

Public reaction: The public comment period was long and emotional. More than two dozen residents and advocacy representatives spoke. Opponents included members of the Spokane human‑rights and immigrant‑rights groups, local clergy and immigrant residents who said the resolution would chill reporting of crimes, separate families and build fear. Justice Sproul, identified as a member of the Spokane Human Rights Commission, said the resolution would "have long‑term impacts" and warned it would erode community trust. Many speakers described personal ties to immigrant households and urged council to reject the measure.

Supporters said the resolution simply clarifies that the city will not be a sanctuary and argued local governments should comply with federal law where permissible. In the council discussion, members who supported the resolution said it updates a 2016 declaration and aims to align local policy with state and federal requirements; those opposed said the resolution was unnecessary, politically divisive and could deter immigrant cooperation with police.

Outcome and next steps: Council approved the resolution at the meeting. Staff said city operations will continue to be governed by state law and by court precedent; the resolution’s language references compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. City attorneys said they could provide a deeper legal analysis on supremacy, preemption and specific procedural impacts if the council requests it.

Context: The mayor and council emphasized the resolution is a policy statement and that operational procedures remain constrained by state law, including statutes that limit local involvement in federal immigration enforcement. The vote concluded a meeting that drew far more public speakers on this topic than initially anticipated.