Washington State

Office of the Attorney General

Attorney General

Nick Brown

Pending Attorney General's Opinions

Pending Attorney General's Office Formal Opinion Requests

The Washington Attorney General issues formal published opinions in response to requests by the heads of state agencies, state legislators, and county prosecuting attorneys.  When the Attorney General's Office receives a request for a formal opinion, a summary of that opinion request will be published here. 

(Updated June 26, 2026)

Formal Requests:

Informal Requests:

 You may notify the Attorney General’s Office of your intention to comment by:

  • Writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Attention: Alicia O. Young, Deputy Solicitor General, P.O. Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504-0100;  or
  • Emailing opinioncomments@atg.wa.gov.

When you notify the office of your intention to comment, you may be provided with:

  • A copy of the opinion request in which you are interested;
  • Information about the Attorney General’s Opinion process;
  • Information on how to submit your comments; and
  • A due date by which your comments must be received to ensure that they are fully considered.

 

Formal Opinion Requests:

Opinion Docket No. 26-05-01: Request by The Honorable Yasmin Trudeau, State Senator, District 27

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

  1. Must a person wearing “smart glasses” or similar technology receive individual consent from all parties present in a private setting before recording any activity? Similarly, must notice be provided to those present through some form? 
  2. Does it violate RCW 9.73.030 or any other current Washington law for manufacturers of this technology to condition its use on the ability of the manufacturer to directly obtain all recorded footage? 
  3. Since conversations with law enforcement have not been considered private conversations, and thus not subject to the state’s privacy act, does a law enforcement officer have a legal duty under RCW to notify persons that they are using the technology when the person is being stopped? 

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-10-04: Request by The Honorable Alicia Rule, State Representative, District 42

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

1.    How far back is an employer permitted to go when considering cannabis test results in employment decisions?

2.    Whether employment decisions may be based on past cannabis use?

3.    Whether an employer can evaluate current employees based on historical cannabis use and, if so, how far the lookback period is?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-10-03, Request by The Honorable Carolyn Eslick, State Representative, District 39, and The Honorable Alicia Rule, State Representative, District 42

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

(1)    Does RCW 28A.320.240(2) authorize a school district board of directors to eliminate a whole school library program in a school or district?

(2)    Is a school district with a school library information and technology program required under RCW 28A.32.240(4) and (5) to use teacher-librarians (as defined in subsection (3)) to staff a school library information and technology program?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-09-01, Request by The Honorable Michelle Caldier, State Representative, District 26

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Do the modifications to RCW 82.14.390 and 82.14.485 enacted by HB 1109 authorize a qualified Public Facility District (PFD) to utilize the local sales and use tax specified in those statutes to finance construction or improvement of regional centers commencing after 2010?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-08-03, Request by Robert Sealby, Chelan County Prosecuting Attorney

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

1. Does RCW 39.114.020(4) allow for true co-sponsorship of a TIA as it does explicitly permit local governments to enter into interlocal agreements under RCW 39.34 for the administration or other activities related to TIF?

2. Does RCW 39.114.020(4) require that only one jurisdiction be the sole official sponsor and creator of the TIA?

3. Does RCW 39.114.020(4) allow the creation of a multi-jurisdictional TIA with shared primary statutory authority?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-06-01, Request by Marcus Harden, Executive Director, Washington State Charter School Commission

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

  1. Can charter public schools be granted waivers from the requirements of a program of basic education by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) or the State Board of Education (SBE) under RCW 28A.300.750, where the language of RCW 28A.300.750 gives OSPI and SBE authority to grant waivers to school districts, but does not include charter public schools? [This request is not intended to address emergency waivers under RCW 28A.230.320.] 
  2. Can the Charter School Commission grant waivers to charter public schools through the charter contract, where the Charter School Act (RCW 28A.710) requires charter public schools to provide a program of basic education, and does not provide the Charter School Commission the authority to waive any basic education requirements?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-04-01, Request by Richard A. Weyrich, Prosecuting Attorney, Skagit County

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Whether a nonprofit association operating a community water system qualifies as a “public facility” under RCW 82.14.370 where the association is open to all property owners in the designated service area and its members include a public school and fire department?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-02-01, Request by Fred Wade, Chair, Washington State Collection Agency Board, Washington State Department of Licensing

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Are the regulations contained in the Collection Agency Act, chapter 19.16 RCW, enforceable against licensees collecting public debts, also known as legal financial obligations (LFOs), under RCW 19.16.500 or RCW 3.02.045?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 24-12-02: Request by Richard A. Weyrich, Prosecuting Attorney, Skagit County

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

1. Pursuant to RCW Chapter 77.85, by what mechanism and criteria may local and tribal governments within a watershed de-designate a private nonprofit corporation as RCW 77.85.050(l)(a) lead entity for that watershed?

2. In the alternative, under RCW Chapter 77.85, where a private nonprofit corporation currently asserts standing as a RCW 77.85.050(l)(a) lead entity within a watershed, may the county, unified dike/drainage districts and a federally recognized Indian tribe within that watershed form a separate RCW 77.85.050(1)(a) lead entity by which to direct state salmon recovery funding toward strategic governmental objectives, providing a competing list of funding priorities to the state Salmon Funding Recovery Board?

3. By prioritizing, controlling and directing the distribution of state salmon recovery funds in the place of cities and counties, is a nonprofit that has been designed a watershed's RCW 77.85.050(l)(a) lead entity, and therefore its board of directors, "exercising or undertaking to exercise any of the powers or functions of a municipal officer", within the meaning of RCW 42.23.020(2)?

4. To the extent the answer to question #3 is "yes," does the participation of nonprofit representatives on a RCW 77.85.050(1)(a) lead entity nonprofit board of directors in the prioritization, selection and/or arrangement of funding contracts with their own nonprofit employers offend the prohibition on beneficial interest in contracts set forth by RCW Chapter 42.23.30?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 24-09-01: Request by The Honorable Leonard G. Christian, State Representative, District 4

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Do the background check and waiting period requirements of RCW 9.41.092 apply to sales of firearms to individual law enforcement officers who use the firearm within the scope of their employment?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 23-08-01: Request by The Honorable Monica Stonier, State Representative, District 49

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office by September 15, 2023. 

Is an inclusive and culturally competent education permissible under, as well as consistent with the goals of, state and federal civil rights laws, including Washington’s Equal Education Opportunity Law, Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.642.010; its related prohibition on sex discrimination in public schools, Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.640.010; the education clause of the state constitution, Wash. Const. art. IX, § 1; the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)?

Entire text of original request

Informal Opinion Requests:

Opinion Docket No. 26-06-01: Request by The Honorable Marcus Riccelli, State Senator, District 3

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Questions:

  • May a county or city impose a commercial parking tax pursuant to RCW 82.80.030 on a parking facility owned and operated by a public facility district as long as a public facility district has not imposed the same or similar tax under RCW 35.57.110 or RCW 36.100.220, or does the language of RCW 35.57.110 or RCW 36.100.220 gives a public facility district the exclusive authority to impose such as tax thereby precluding a county or city from imposing a commercial parking tax under RCW 82.80.030 regardless of whether a public facility district has imposed the same or similar tax pursuant to RCW 35.57.110 or RCW 36.100.220?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-10-02: Request by The Honorable Hunter M. Abell, State Representative, District 7

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Questions:

  1. Whether the Department of Health (DOH) may, citing lack of funds, decline or refuse to produce the annual Death With Dignity report specified under RCW 70.245.150; and 
  2. Whether the DOH may, citing lack of funds, pause annual statistic reporting necessary to produce present or future annual Death With Dignity reports under RCW 70.245.150.

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 26-01-02: Request by Eric Eisinger, Prosecuting Attorney, Benton County

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Questions:

1. Does Washington law permit a multi-county health district to amend its bylaws to require a commissioner from each respective county to approve a regulation for the regulation to pass?

2. Does Washington law entitle a county to repayment of financial contributions made to a multi-county health district if the county later withdraws?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-09-02: Request by The Honorable Lisa Wellman, State Senator, District 41

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Does RCW 43.79.195 authorize expenditures from Washington’s workforce education investment account for STEM robotics programs (like FIRST Robotics)?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-08-02: Request by The Honorable Amy Walen, State Representative, District 48

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

1.  Does cable-locking firearms to a display meet the secure storage requirement in RCW 9.41.110(10)(a)?

2.  Does the requirement in RCW 9.41.110(1)(a)(iv) mean that, while a video security system must be capable of recording 24 hours a day, it need not actually record continuously as long as it can be activated well enough to capture what it needs to capture in order to assist in any theft investigation or other law enforcement follow up?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 25-01-01: Request by The Honorable Lisa Wellman, State Senator, District 41

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

Does the Attorney General’s Office interpret RCW 19.373.080 as prohibiting a gym or fitness center from causing a consumer’s mobile device, once it is within 2,000 feet of a gym or fitness center, from presenting the consumer with a barcode, QR code or other digital ID that the consumer can scan to check into the facility, even if the gym or fitness center does not use such geolocation services to identify or track the consumer or to collect consumer health data from the consumer, and even if the consumer consents to receiving such notifications?

Entire text of original request

Opinion Docket No. 24-07-01: Request by The Honorable Mike Padden, State Senator, District 4

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office.

1. Does RCW 48.30.110 prohibit insurance producers from contributing to candidates for the Office of the Insurance Commissioner?

2. Does RCW 48.30.110 prohibit those employed by an insurer from contributing to candidates for the Office of the Insurance Commissioner?

3. Does RCW 48.30.110 prohibit individual members of a fraternal benefit society from contributing to candidates for the Office of the Insurance Commissioner?

Entire text of original request

Back to top