During the briefing, Pacifica attorneys discussed the current legal landscape, explored future scenarios, and shared practical guidance and potential legal strategies on the following topics. Two days into the new administration, many of these concerns have already begun to materialize—and Pacifica is working with its clients and community partners on multiple fronts to respond. (Stay tuned.)

Immigration

Sarah Mack and Anita Khandelwal discussed how the incoming administration’s immigration policies may conflict with state laws and federal privacy laws. They also discussed the potential ramifications of the Trump administration’s threats to revoke the Department of Homeland Security’s “Sensitive Locations Policy,” which currently provides that federal immigration enforcement operations should not occur at courts, schools or other designated locations.

Sarah and Anita also shared ideas about how schools, courts, jails, and other public and private entities should prepare for and respond to the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at their facilities.

Federal Funding

Jessica Skelton and Paul Lawrence analyzed the potential for the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to use funding to ensure state and local compliance with federal policies. They discussed the 10th Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, which says that the federal government cannot coerce state or local governments to enforce federal laws. They also discussed the use of funding incentives to encourage state and local compliance, including the guardrails courts have placed on the use of such funding incentives.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives

Jessica and Paul also analyzed the current state of the law on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in light of two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Students for Fair Admissions, the 2023 case in which the Court struck down race-based admissions processes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina; and Allen v. Milligan, in which the Court upheld a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that allows race-conscious government action as a remedy to unlawful discrimination.

They also looked ahead to possible DEI-related issues under the new administration, including the potential abolishment of government DEI offices, the end of federal government participation in DEI initiatives, and threats to eliminate federal funding to organizations with DEI programs.

Abortion Access

Jamie Lisagor and Erica Coray addressed how abortion access may be affected during the second Trump administration. Jamie and Erica provided an overview of Washington’s abortion protections and explained how the Trump administration may attempt to undermine those protections by utilizing the Comstock Act, seeking reversal of the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone abortion medication, or by cutting insurance coverage and funding for organizations and programs that currently provide abortions. They concluded by discussing ways in which local government entities and organizations can help protect access to abortion during the Trump administration.

Gun Violence Prevention

Zach Pekelis outlined how the second Trump administration may attempt to weaken gun violence prevention efforts. As he promised during the campaign, Trump will likely divert federal funds to arm teachers, encourage gun sales without background checks, defund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and do away with ATF regulations. Trump has also pledged to sign the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would force states to recognize concealed carry laws of other states—even those that require no permit at all.

For questions regarding these or other issues related to the changing legal landscape under the second Trump administration, please reach out to Jessica Skelton or any member of the Pacifica team.

<Read more> for an overview of the ordinance’s key provisions.

Under the Disclose Act of 2018, a nonprofit must register with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) as an “incidental committee” and file regular reports if it (1) expects to spend $25,000 or more in a calendar year to support or oppose state or local candidates or ballot propositions and (2) receives cumulative payments of $10,000 or more from a single source.  The PDC has indicated that a nonprofit that only makes independent expenditures need not file as an incidental committee, but may be subject to other reporting requirements.  The PDC also clarified in recent emergency rules that a wide range of entities may qualify as an incidental committee, including but not limited to charities, social welfare organizations, trade associations, and even limited partnerships and LLCs controlled by any of the above.  Previously, only nonprofits with a primary purpose of conducting campaign-related activities were required to report.

Read more >