Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,798 chars

while it may be true as a descriptive matter that many students attend the schools

affected by an affirmative action decision and many people use health insurance,

neither YAF nor City of Seattle treated those facts as necessary or even sufficient.

Instead, they focused on the nature of the public interest affected—the ability to

increase the enrollment of students from underrepresented communities, access to

Medicaid, and potential penalties for people without health insurance. YAF, 91

Wn.2d at 212; City of Seattle, 172 Wn.2d at 562-63. The fact that those effects may

be felt statewide may be relevant, but the driving consideration was how those

matters would impact the state. Thus, this “matter of public concern” analysis is

better characterized as looking to whether the matter has a significant effect on

Washingtonians rather than whether it affects a significant number of

Washingtonians. See YAF, 91 Wn.2d at 207 (“cases which may directly or indirectly

impact upon state functions”); City of Seattle, 172 Wn.2d at 562 (“directly affect

residents of the state”).

The respondents argue on this theory that the attorney general is not

authorized to seek to enforce the private rights of a small number of individuals. But

that is not the gravamen of the State’s complaint. Rather, the State has an interest in

20
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its residents, including holding

government actors accountable against allegations of discrimination and violations

of constitutional rights. The State is not seeking to simply enforce individual

rights—tenants have no rights to appeal a notice of violation under the CFRHP.