This browser does not support the Video element.
What WA residents should know about their constitutional rights amid federal protests
During a time of unrest in Minneapolis following the deadly shootings involving federal agents, many in Washington state are beginning to question their constitutional rights as American citizens. This morning, we spoke with University of Washington assistant professor of law Jeremiah Chin, who specializes in constitutional law.
SEATTLE - 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.
The backstory:
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.
Seattle crowds protest US Border Patrol shooting of Alex Pretti in MN
On Saturday, crowds gathered at locations across Seattle to remember Alex Pretti and protest his killing by federal Border patrol agents. We spoke with attendees about their reaction to the news and why they hit the streets.
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 (ICE) 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.
Photos of ICE protests in Seattle, Washington (Left), Photo of UW law professor Jeremiah Chin (Right). (FOX 13 Seattle)
What they're saying:
"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."
Is it unconstitutional for US federal forces to enter a state uninvited?
"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.
What actions by federal officers would be considered illegal in WA?
"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."
What to know if federal agents enter WA
"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.
Ferguson, Brown to address how WA is preparing for any possible ICE activity
Gov. Bob Ferguson and Attorney General Nick Brown spoke at the state Capitol on Monday to address a federal memo authorizing ICE agents to enter homes without judicial warrants.
Can federal agents enter homes without knocking in emergencies?
"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.
Second Amendment: What are WA’s laws on guns and open carry in public?
"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.
First Amendment: What rights do protesters have under the US Constitution?
"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."
LIVE UPDATES | ICE in Minnesota: Gov. Walz met with Border Czar Tom Homan, Trump comments on meeting
Some federal agents are expected to begin leaving Minnesota on Tuesday as leadership of immigration operations in the Twin Cities changes. Find live updates on ICE operations here.
The Source: Information in this story comes from original reporting by FOX 13 Seattle and a live television interview on Good Day Seattle with University of Washington assistant professor of law Jeremiah Chin, who specializes in constitutional law.
MORE NEWS FROM FOX 13 SEATTLE
Trump announces federal funding cuts for sanctuary cities and states, including WA
WSDOT estimates $40-50 million to repair Washington roads after historic flooding
Thurston County death investigation upgraded to homicide, suspect in custody
Gov. Ferguson calls for millionaires’ tax in State of the State address
Report reveals which Costco items can pay for the annual membership
To 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.