HB 2602
In CommitteeHouse
Data and personal safety
Establishing data and personal safety protections within areas of public accommodation for all Washington residents.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill establishes protections to keep immigration enforcement activities out of sensitive areas like schools, child care centers, health care facilities, colleges, and election sites—unless a court order requires cooperation. It prohibits staff at these locations from collecting immigration or citizenship status information and limits access to private areas by immigration officers without proper legal authorization.
- Prohibits early learning providers from collecting immigration or citizenship status of students or their families, and restricts immigration enforcement officers from entering nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order.
- Prohibits school district employees from collecting immigration or citizenship status of students or families, and restricts immigration enforcement access to nonpublic school areas without a court order; requires school boards to adopt policies by the 2027–28 school year.
- Requires health care facilities to designate areas where patients receive care or discuss health information as nonpublic, and prohibits immigration enforcement access to those areas without a court order.
- Requires institutions of higher education to designate nonpublic areas and restrict immigration enforcement access to those areas without a court order.
- Requires county auditors to designate ballot handling and counting areas as nonpublic and restrict immigration enforcement access to those areas without a court order.
- Clarifies that none of the provisions create a private right of action (i.e., individuals cannot sue under this law alone).
Who is affected
- Families and students in early learning programs — Families and students in early learning programs (e.g., child care centers, Head Start, preschools) are protected from having their immigration or citizenship status collected by providers and from immigration enforcement officers entering private areas of facilities without a court order.
- Students and school staff — Students and school staff are protected from immigration enforcement officers entering nonpublic areas of schools (e.g., classrooms, offices) without a judicial warrant or court order, and schools must adopt policies to enforce this.
- Patients and health care facility staff — Patients and healthcare staff are protected by limiting immigration enforcement access to areas where patients receive care or discuss private health information, unless a court order permits entry.
- Students and staff at higher education institutions — Students, faculty, and staff at colleges and universities benefit from protections against immigration enforcement officers entering private or restricted areas (e.g., dorms, offices, labs) without a court order.
- Election workers and voters — Election workers and the public benefit from safeguards ensuring that ballot processing areas remain secure and free from immigration enforcement access unless legally authorized.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Prevents immigration enforcement activities in schools, child care, health care, colleges, and election sites — protecting vulnerable populations (especially children, patients, and voters) from fear, trauma, and disruption during essential services, thereby enabling full participation in education, health care, and democracy without fear of immigration consequences.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 5(1)Ensures patients can access care and discuss health information in private without fear of immigration enforcement, supporting timely medical attention, adherence to treatment, and trust in providers — particularly critical for undocumented immigrants and mixed-status families who may otherwise avoid care entirely.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 5(1)Strengthens school climate and student attendance by reducing fear of immigration enforcement on school grounds, supporting equitable access to education for all students regardless of immigration status — especially important for undocumented and mixed-status students who may otherwise miss school or withdraw due to safety concerns.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3), Sec. 1(1), Sec. 4(1)Safeguards election integrity and voter confidence by preventing immigration enforcement in ballot processing areas — reducing intimidation risks for election workers and voters, and ensuring that noncitizen residents (including naturalized citizens and legal residents) can participate in election-related work without fear of immigration consequences.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5(1), Sec. 5(2)Protects privacy and due process by prohibiting collection of immigration status by service providers and requiring judicial authorization for enforcement access to private areas — reinforcing constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in sensitive spaces.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 5(1)
Potential Concerns (4)
Restricting immigration enforcement access to nonpublic areas without a court order may hinder federal immigration enforcement efforts in sensitive locations, potentially delaying or preventing the apprehension of individuals subject to final removal orders who are present in these facilities — though such incidents are rare and typically involve serious criminal conduct. This could reduce the perceived effectiveness of immigration enforcement in Washington, especially for federal agencies operating under federal law.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(2), Sec. 4(2), Sec. 5(2)School districts, health care facilities, colleges, and county auditors must develop, adopt, and implement new policies, train staff, and potentially hire or reassign personnel to comply with the law — incurring modest administrative costs that may strain local budgets, especially in smaller or under-resourced districts or agencies.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(2), Sec. 4(2), Sec. 5(2)While the bill protects privacy and safety, it may create ambiguity for staff about when federal immigration enforcement is legally required — potentially leading to inconsistent application, over-cautious denials of access, or confusion about legal obligations, especially in emergencies or when federal officers present administrative subpoenas or warrants that are technically valid but not judicial.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(2), Sec. 4(2), Sec. 5(2)The explicit prohibition on private rights of action means individuals who believe their rights have been violated (e.g., immigration officers denied access who believe they had lawful authority, or families denied services due to misapplication of the law) have no direct legal recourse — reducing accountability and potentially eroding trust in public institutions.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(6), Sec. 3(6), Sec. 4(5), Sec. 5(6)
Who Is Most Affected
Undocumented and mixed-status families with children in early learning or K–12 settings benefit significantly — reduced fear of enforcement at schools or child care increases access to services and reduces trauma. However, families with members subject to final removal orders may face increased enforcement risk outside these settings, and some may distrust all government services due to broader immigration enforcement climate.
Health care providers gain clarity on legal boundaries and reduced liability risk when denying immigration enforcement access, but may face administrative burdens in policy development and staff training. Patients, especially undocumented and noncitizen patients, benefit from increased trust and access to care. However, providers may face pressure from federal agencies or political actors if enforcement efforts increase.
College and university staff and students — especially international, undocumented, or DACA students — benefit from reduced fear and increased campus safety. However, institutions may face increased administrative costs and potential federal scrutiny if they restrict access to federal immigration officers, especially if federal funding is tied to cooperation.
Election workers and volunteers gain protection from intimidation or immigration consequences while performing civic duties. Voters, including noncitizen residents and naturalized citizens, benefit from increased confidence in election integrity and safety. However, county auditors may face logistical challenges in designating and securing nonpublic areas, especially in rural counties with limited resources.
Local governments (school districts, counties) incur modest administrative costs for policy development and training, but avoid potential liability from unconstitutional enforcement actions. However, some local officials may face political pressure or criticism from federal or state immigration enforcement partners, especially if cooperation with federal agencies is expected.