HB 2597 — Concerning remedies for violations of federal constitutional rights occurring during immigration enforcement.

H-3398.1H-2999.1 SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 2597 State of Washington 69th Legislature 2026 Regular Session By House Civil Rights & Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Thai, Fosse, Simmons, Parshley, Gregerson, Santos, Ramel, Stearns, Goodman, Obras, Peterson, Cortes, Doglio, Ormsby, Pollet, Scott, Ryu, Nance, and Salahuddin)Salahuddin READRead FIRSTfirst TIMEtime 02/04/26.01/20/26.

Referred to Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary.

creating a new section;sections;

AThe newlegislature sectionfinds isand addeddeclares tothat: chapter 4.24 RCW to read as follows:

(1) EverySince person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the Unitedearliest Statesdays or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitutionnation, of the United States duringsupreme civilcourt immigrationhas enforcement,held, shall be liable to the party injured in ancases action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer'sas judicialLittle capacity,v. injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

(2)Barreme, In6 anyU.S. action or proceeding under this section, the court, in its discretion, may allow a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys' fee as part of the costs, except that in any action p.

1170 SHB(1804), 2597and broughtMurray againstv. a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorneys' fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.

InThe awardingCharming attorneys'Betsey, fees6 inU.S. any action or proceeding under this section, the court, in its discretion, may include expert fees as part of the attorneys' fees.

(3)64 A(1804), defendantthat infederal anofficials actionmay underbe thisliable sectionin maydamages assertfor aviolations defense of absolutefederal orlaws. qualified immunity to the same extent as a person sued under 42 U.S.C.

(2) The United States supreme court has long held that federal employees are not inherently beyond the reach of state laws simply because they are federal employees.

For example, in Johnson v.

Maryland, 254 U.S.

51 (1920), the court noted, "[A]n employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment," and in Colorado v.

Symes, 286 U.S.

510 (1932), the court stated, "Federal officers and employees are not, merely because they are such, granted immunity from prosecution in state courts for crimes against state law." p.

1 HB 2597 (3) Decades later, the United States supreme court continued to recognize the role of state law in holding federal officials accountable for legal violations, noting in Wheeldin v.

Wheeler, 373 U.S.

647 (1963), "[w]hen it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal officials are usually governed by local law." (4) When the United States supreme court recognized a federal law cause of action for violation of certain constitutional rights in Bivens v.

Six Unknown Fed.

Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S.

388 (1971), that cause of action was in addition to, rather than instead of, traditional state law remedies.

Even one of the dissenting justices in Bivens noted the ongoing role of state law, writing, "The task of evaluating the pros and cons of creating judicial remedies for particular wrongs is a matter for Congress and the legislatures of the States." (5) More recently, congress has made federal statutory law the exclusive remedy for certain claims sounding in tort, but this exclusivity specifically "does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government...

which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States..." 28 U.S.C.

19832679. under like circumstances.

NothingThe inprime thissponsor sectionof waiveslegislation oramending abrogatesthe anyfederal defensetort ofclaims sovereignact immunityto otherwiseprovide availablefor limited exclusivity took pains to aclarify, party."We make special provisions here to make clear that the more controversial issue of constitutional torts is not covered by this bill.

If you are accused of having violated someone's constitutional rights, this bill does not affect it." 134 Cong.

Rec.

15963 (1988).

(6) In 2022, in declining to extend the scope of the Bivens action in Egbert v.

Boule, 596 U.S.

482 (2022), the United States supreme court observed that legislatures, not courts, are the better branches of government to fashion damages remedies.

(7) In its most recently completed term, the United States supreme court declined, in Martin v.

United States, 145 S.

Ct.

1689 (2025), to extend the doctrine of supremacy clause immunity beyond its traditional criminal law context.

(8) Violating the federal constitutional rights of residents of the United States has never been and can never be "necessary and proper" to the execution of the laws and powers of the United States within the meaning of Article I, section 8, clause 18 of the United States Constitution.

p.

2 HB 2597 (9) In enacting this act, Washington affirms its longstanding and rightful role as a sovereign state in providing a forum in its courts for adjudication of claims of federal constitutional violations.

NEW SECTION.

Sec.