Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/961328.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Full Text
1,773 charsquotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 916, 287 P.3d 584 (2012)). “‘Holding a statute unconstitutional as-applied prohibits future application of the statute in a similar context, but the statute is not totally invalidated.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 916). A facial challenge must be rejected unless there is “no set of circumstances in which the statute[, as currently written,] can constitutionally be applied.” In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wn.2d 379, 417 n.27, 986 P.2d 790 (1999) (quoting Ada v. Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 506 U.S. 1011, 1012, 113 S. Ct. 633, 121 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting)). When determining whether a law is facially invalid, courts must be careful not to exceed the facial requirements and speculate about hypothetical cases. Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449-50, 128 S. Ct. 1184, 170 L. Ed. 2d 151 (2008). 6 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 96132-8 Facial claims are generally disfavored. State v. McCuistion, 174 Wn.2d 369, 389, 275 P.3d 1092 (2012). They often rest on speculation and “‘run contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it nor formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.’” Id. We have previously considered and upheld WLAD’s religious employer exemption from a facial constitutional challenge in Ockletree. In that case, an African- American security guard at a Catholic hospital was terminated after he suffered a stroke.