Washington State

Office of the Attorney General

Attorney General

Bob Ferguson

  • Coffey v. Skagit Regional Health (Skagit County Superior Court and Washington Court of Appeals Division I) – Superior Court amicus brief, Division I amicus brief
    • The State of Washington argued that a public hospital district violated the state Reproductive Privacy Act by declining to provide elective abortions despite offering maternity care services.
       
  • Fair Housing Center of Washington v. Breier-Scheetz Properties, LLC (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
    • The State of Washington argued that a housing provider may avoid liability for a practice with a discriminatory impact on a protected class only by showing that its practice is a business necessity.
  • Floeting v. Group Health Cooperative (Washington Court of Appeals Division I) – Division I amicus brief, Supreme Court amicus brief
    • The State of Washington argued that the Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits sexual harassment in a place of public accommodation and that the same legal standard that applies to discrimination in places of public accommodation based on other protected classes should apply equally to claims of discrimination based on sex.
       
  • Fulcher v. Veterans Administration (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and Washington State Supreme Court) — amicus brief
    • The State of Washington, joined by 9 states and the District of Columbia, argued that the Veterans Administration’s regulation categorically excluding “gender alterations” from its medical benefits coverage is discriminatory, poses public health risks to the states, and causes serious harm to transgender veterans.
  • G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board (Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court) — Fourth Circuit amicus brief, U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief
    • The State of Washington, joined by more than 15 states and the District of Columbia, argued that discrimination against transgender students constitutes sex-based discrimination and harms states, poses serious public health risks, and causes serious harm to transgender people.
  • J.E.F.M. v. Lynch (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
    • The State of Washington, on behalf of itself and California, argued that immigrant children placed in immigration proceedings by the federal government have a due process right to representation by counsel at government expense.
       
  • Kaiser v. CSL Plasma (King County Superior Court) - amicus brief
    • The State of Washington argued that the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s broad definition of “a place of public accommodation” includes a blood donation center open to the public and that the blood donation center is not exempt from the Consumer Protection Act.
       
  • Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) v. Sessions (W.D. Wash.) – amicus brief
    • The State of Washington argued that NWIRP’s provision of free and low-cost legal services to immigrants furthers the State’s interest in protecting consumers from notario fraud and promoting access to safe and affordable legal assistance. The State explained that an Executive Office for Immigration Review directive that NWIRP cease and desist from providing limited legal representation to individuals in removal proceedings would be detrimental to the public interest.
       
  • Sanchez Ochoa v. Campbell (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
    • The State of Washington argued that local law enforcement officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they detain or prolong a detention solely for civil immigration purposes, and that Washington communities are safer when law enforcement limits its involvement with the civil immigration system. The State also argued that Washington jails cannot list immigration status information on public jail rosters.
  • Texas v. United States (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the U.S. Supreme Court) – District Court amicus brief
    • The State of Washington, on behalf of 12 states and the District of Columbia, argued that civil rights protections for transgender and gender non-conforming students and employees benefit the public interest and are workable to implement.
       
  • Wakefield v. City of Richland (Washington Court of Appeals Division III and Washington Supreme Court) – amicus brief
    • The State of Washington argued that courts may not use formal contempt proceedings to require an indigent criminal defendant to pay court costs and fines where the only available source of payment would be means-tested public assistance benefits.
       
  • Yakima Neighborhood Health Services v. City of Yakima (E.D. Wash.) – amicus brief
    • The State of Washington argued that the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s housing discrimination protections are at least as broad as the federal Fair Housing Act and prohibit municipal zoning and land use decisions that “make unavailable or deny” housing because of membership in a protected class, including disability.