Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Several members of the public submitted requests to a large social media company seeking information about political advertisements displayed on its platforms to users in Washington State. The company did not dispute that its responses to these requests failed to comply with Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) and the law’s implementing regulations, as it did not provide all the required information. The State of Washington, through the Attorney General’s Office, filed suit against the company, alleging multiple violations of the FCPA’s disclosure requirements.The case was heard in King County Superior Court, where both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the State, holding the company liable for violating the FCPA, and imposed maximum statutory penalties for each advertisement for which the required information was not disclosed. The court found the violations to be intentional, trebled both the civil penalties and attorney fees, and granted an injunction. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings on liability, statutory interpretation regarding penalty calculation, and the constitutionality of the penalty assessed.Before the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, the company argued that the FCPA’s disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment as applied, that the penalty was improperly calculated, and that the penalty violated the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. The Supreme Court, with no single majority opinion, affirmed the company’s liability under the FCPA, holding that the law as applied does not violate the First Amendment. The court also let the penalty judgment stand, as no majority view existed to reverse or modify it, and further held by a majority that the penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Thus, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, upholding both the liability finding and the civil penalty. View "State v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

Two individuals, each with multiple convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) within seven years in Washington State, challenged a state law that temporarily prohibits people with such convictions from possessing firearms. Their applications for concealed carry permits were denied based on this statute, and they subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action, arguing that the law violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The statute in question allows individuals disarmed under this provision to petition for restoration of firearm rights after five years of law-abiding conduct.The Spokane County Superior Court denied the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings but granted its request for further factual development, ruling that there were material issues of fact—specifically, whether either petitioner posed a credible threat to public safety. The trial court allowed the as-applied constitutional challenge to proceed, focusing on whether an individualized assessment of dangerousness was required under recent Supreme Court precedent.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington granted direct interlocutory review. It held that, under the Second Amendment, the state may temporarily disarm individuals convicted of multiple DUI offenses without requiring an individualized determination of dangerousness. The court examined the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, finding that longstanding analogs support disarmament of groups with a proven risk of dangerous conduct, such as repeated DUI convictions. The court reasoned that the law at issue is justified by the legislature’s determination that recidivist drunk drivers pose a special danger of firearm misuse, and that such temporary restrictions are consistent with historical tradition. The court reversed the superior court’s decision and remanded with instructions to enter judgment on the pleadings in favor of the State. View "McLellan v. Brown" on Justia Law

The case concerned a Black defendant who was convicted of second-degree felony murder. During jury selection, the prosecution used a peremptory challenge to exclude juror 40, who was white and had selected “prefer not to answer” regarding gender on a questionnaire. This juror had expressed strong concerns about racial bias in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Defense counsel objected to the State’s peremptory strike by citing General Rule 37 (GR 37), but specifically raised only an argument about gender identity discrimination, not race or ethnicity.At trial, the King County Superior Court allowed the State’s challenge, finding that juror 40’s political views and demeanor, not their (presumed) gender identity, were valid grounds for exclusion. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that defense counsel’s objection based on gender identity did not preserve a GR 37 claim related to race, and thus the trial court did not err.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. It clarified that an objection to a peremptory strike under GR 37 can be preserved by simply invoking the rule, but in this instance, defense counsel undermined the objection by focusing solely on gender identity. However, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to review the race discrimination claim, emphasizing the importance of addressing racial bias even if not properly preserved below.The Supreme Court held that the State failed to comply with GR 37(i) procedures by relying on uncorroborated demeanor-based justifications for its peremptory challenge, which could not be considered. While the State’s use of juror 40’s views on law enforcement as a justification was presumptively invalid under GR 37(h), the totality of circumstances rebutted this presumption. The court concluded that an objective observer could not view race as a factor in the State’s strike and affirmed the lower court’s decision. View "State v. Hogan" on Justia Law

The case centers on the conviction of an individual for felony harassment after a series of threatening communications directed at a long-time acquaintance, A.D. The events unfolded after a falling out and subsequent reconciliation between the two, which quickly deteriorated. On the day in question, A.D. testified to receiving a barrage of threatening calls and messages from the defendant, including explicit threats to kill her. Law enforcement was involved when A.D. reported the threats, with officers witnessing continued harassing calls and hearing threats made over the phone. The defendant was arrested near A.D.’s home and denied making any threats.The Superior Court for Pierce County conducted a jury trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of felony harassment but acquitted him of a stalking charge. The instructions to the jury defined a “true threat” based on what a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would foresee, employing a negligence standard regarding the defendant’s awareness of how his words would be perceived. The defendant appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which held that “recklessness,” not negligence, is the minimum required mental state for criminalizing true threats under the First Amendment.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the state’s harassment statute was not facially unconstitutional and that the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon further review, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the statute is facially constitutional because it does not preclude application of a recklessness standard. However, the court found that the jury was incorrectly instructed regarding mens rea and remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the clarified standard in State v. Magaña-Arévalo. View "State v. Calloway" on Justia Law

A city councilmember in Stevenson, Washington, participated in a protest outside the Skamania County Courthouse on International Transgender Day of Visibility. During the demonstration, she exposed her breasts with the phrase “MY BODY IS NOT A SIN” written on her chest as a form of protest. Police officers approached her regarding potential violation of Washington’s indecent exposure law (RCW 9A.88.010), but she asserted her actions were protected by the First Amendment and was neither arrested nor charged.A local resident filed a recall petition in Skamania County Superior Court, alleging that the councilmember committed malfeasance and violated her oath of office by engaging in indecent exposure, which the petitioner argued justified her removal from office. The Skamania County Superior Court found the recall charge factually and legally sufficient, determining that malfeasance simply required the commission of an unlawful act, and certified the ballot synopsis. The court reasoned that it was ultimately up to voters to decide if the conduct amounted to a violation of the law.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. The court held that the recall petition was neither factually nor legally sufficient. It found that there was no evidence the councilmember intended to violate the law, as indecent exposure under RCW 9A.88.010 requires intentional open and obscene exposure, and the facts indicated she believed her conduct was lawful protest. Furthermore, the court concluded her actions were constitutionally protected expressive conduct. The court also determined that there was no factual or legal basis for a violation of the oath of office, as her conduct was not related to her official duties. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reversed the superior court’s ruling and dismissed the recall petition. View "In re Recall of Lauser" on Justia Law

Renton police and SWAT officers executed a search warrant at the apartment where Cristian Magaña Arévalo was staying with his family, seeking evidence related to the murder of Jason Hobbs. Officers ordered everyone out using a bullhorn, separated Magaña Arévalo from his family, restrained him with zip ties, and placed him in a patrol car before transporting him to a nearby parking lot. There, he was transferred to an officer’s work truck and questioned about Hobbs’s murder without receiving Miranda warnings. The officer told him he was “not under arrest” and asked if he would talk, which Magaña Arévalo agreed to. Two days later, he was interviewed again in a noncustodial setting, also without Miranda warnings.In King County Superior Court, Magaña Arévalo moved to suppress both statements, arguing the first was obtained during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and the second was tainted by the initial violation. The court held a CrR 3.5 hearing and ruled both statements admissible, finding neither interrogation custodial or coerced. The jury convicted Magaña Arévalo of first degree murder, and the court sentenced him to prison. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals found the December 1 interrogation was custodial and that admitting the statement was error, but held the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of other strong evidence, including the December 3 statement and physical evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed both parties’ petitions. It held that considering the totality of the circumstances—including restraints, isolation, police presence, and ethnicity—Magaña Arévalo was in custody during the December 1 interrogation, and admitting his statement without Miranda warnings violated his constitutional rights. However, the court found the December 3 statement was voluntary, noncustodial, and not tainted by the earlier violation. Applying a clarified harmless error standard, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Magana-Arevalo" on Justia Law

Anthony Lee was accused of assaulting Amy Groff at his home near Sequim, Washington. After an evening spent together, Lee became angry with Groff, allegedly due to her drug use, theft, and verbal abuse. When they returned home, Lee reportedly fired a gun in the air, struck Groff in the head with the gun, pushed her out of his truck, kicked and hit her, and then shot at her as she ran away. Groff was later found by police with visible injuries and recounted the assault to officers.Lee was charged in the Clallam County Superior Court with two counts of second degree assault with a deadly weapon, each based on separate alleged acts: one for beating Groff with the gun and another for shooting at her. At trial, the judge admitted Groff’s statements to police under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, and instructed the jury not to consider any judicial comments as opinions on the evidence. The jury found Lee guilty on both counts, and the trial court determined the assaults were distinct acts, rejecting Lee’s double jeopardy argument. Lee appealed, raising the double jeopardy issue and, for the first time, challenging the trial judge’s comment on the evidence. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, finding no double jeopardy violation and no manifest constitutional error regarding the judicial comment.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and held that, under the unit of prosecution analysis and considering all relevant factors, Lee’s assaultive acts constituted a single course of conduct. Therefore, two convictions for second degree assault violated double jeopardy principles. The court reversed on that issue, ordering one conviction and its firearm enhancement to be vacated. On the comment on the evidence issue, the court affirmed, finding no manifest constitutional error that would permit review for the first time on appeal. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

On the evening of April 12, 2022, Ralph Kinerson was stabbed following a physical altercation at his home. Both Kinerson and Barclay Dylan Bennett testified that they fought that night, but their accounts differed regarding the circumstances and who initiated the violence. Kinerson claimed Bennett attacked him at his home, while Bennett asserted that Kinerson assaulted him in the street, aided by others, and denied stabbing Kinerson. The police interviewed witnesses, including Kinerson’s neighbor and Kinerson’s daughter, Malea, whose statements became central to the subsequent trial.During trial in the Spokane County Superior Court, Bennett was charged with first degree assault. Bennett’s defense focused on alleged deficiencies in the police investigation, suggesting that officers failed to consider other suspects. On cross-examination, Bennett introduced portions of Malea’s interview with a detective to support this theory, referencing statements about another woman, Abbey Pearson, possibly stealing from Kinerson. In response, the State introduced another part of Malea’s interview, which suggested Bennett had a motive to attack Kinerson due to his relationship with Kinerson’s friend, Roberts. Bennett objected on hearsay and Sixth Amendment grounds, arguing he could not confront Malea, who was unavailable to testify. The trial court overruled the objection, finding Bennett had “opened the door” to the evidence.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Bennett’s conviction, concluding that any error in admitting the hearsay was invited by Bennett’s own actions and precluded review, even for constitutional claims. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed the appellate decision, holding that the statement’s admission was justified under the rule of completeness (ER 106). The Court found the statement was not offered for its truth but to contextualize the investigation, so it did not trigger the confrontation clause. Bennett’s conviction was upheld. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Two individuals each pleaded guilty in separate cases to unlawful possession of controlled substances in Washington State. As part of their sentences, both were required to pay legal financial obligations (LFOs), which they partially satisfied through cash payments and through performing community service. Years later, following the Washington Supreme Court’s invalidation of the simple drug possession statute in State v. Blake, both individuals successfully moved to vacate their convictions and sought reimbursement for both the cash paid and the labor performed in community service that had satisfied portions of their LFOs.The trial courts vacated their convictions and reimbursed the cash payments but declined to reimburse for the value of the community service hours. Both individuals appealed. The Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ decisions, holding that there was no substantive due process right to monetary reimbursement for community service work performed in lieu of LFO payments and that equal protection was not violated. The appellate court found that the appellants had not shown they were treated disparately from similarly situated individuals based on economic status, and even if there was disparate treatment, the decision to not reimburse for community service hours was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that there is no constitutional right—fundamental or otherwise—to reimbursement for community service work performed in satisfaction of court-imposed financial obligations when convictions are later invalidated. The court found no disparate treatment based on economic status and therefore no actionable equal protection claim. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the trial courts was affirmed. View "State v. Danielson" on Justia Law

A petitioner sought to file a referendum challenging a specific section of a recently enacted state law concerning student and parental rights in public education. The law included provisions aimed at promoting student safety, preventing discrimination, and ensuring parental notification in certain circumstances. The legislature included an emergency clause in the bill, declaring it necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety, which made the law effective immediately. When the petitioner submitted the referendum to the Secretary of State, the Secretary refused to process it, citing the emergency clause as rendering the legislation exempt from the referendum process under the state constitution.After the Secretary’s refusal, the petitioner filed an original action in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary to process the referendum and to challenge the validity of the emergency clause. The court granted expedited review due to the time-sensitive nature of referendum signature collection. The petitioner argued that the Secretary had a mandatory duty to process all properly filed referenda, regardless of the presence of an emergency clause, and that the validity of such a clause was a judicial question.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the Secretary of State does not have a mandatory duty to process a referendum on legislation that is, on its face, constitutionally exempt from referendum due to a valid emergency clause. The court further found that the legislature’s declaration of emergency in this case was valid, as the record and legislative history supported the need for immediate action. As a result, the petition for a writ of mandamus was denied. View "Eyman v. Hobbs" on Justia Law