Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 841190.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,722 chars
8
Sherwood Auburn does not address the constitutionality of its preferred interpretation of
the notice provision, which would have Congress imposing limitations on the authority of state
courts. See U.S. CONST. amend. X (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people.”). We are nevertheless mindful of our duty “to construe a statute so as to uphold its
constitutionality.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Wash. v. State, ___ Wn.2d ___, 518 P.3d 639,
643 (2022).

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 84119-0-I/12

precludes imposition of a 30-day notice requirement. However, the Supremacy

Clause of our federal constitution 9 “creates a rule of decision: Courts ‘shall’

regard the ‘Constitution,’ and all laws ‘made in Pursuance thereof,’ as ‘the

supreme Law of the Land.’” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S.

320, 324, 135 S. Ct. 1378, 191 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2015) (quoting U.S. CONST. art. VI,

cl. 2). Thus, courts “must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal

laws.” Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 324. Indeed, state courts are charged with a

“coordinate responsibility” to enforce federal law, as “the Constitution and laws

passed pursuant to it are as much laws in the States as laws passed by the state

legislature.” Howlett By & Through Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 367, 110 S.

Ct. 2430, 110 L. Ed. 2d 332 (1990). Accordingly, pursuant to the Supremacy

Clause, state law is preempted by federal law “‘if the state law conflicts with

federal law due to impossibility of compliance with state and federal law or when