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

1,794 chars

13
Contrary to the concurring opinion, we make no comment on the CFRHP itself based on
our “social beliefs.” Concurrence (Madsen, J.) at 3. The allegations of the problems with its
enforcement have undeniable context. Claims of discriminatory enforcement, in particular, cannot
be understood without recognizing the many forms of housing discrimination that necessitated the
enactment of laws like the WLAD and the FHA. The fact that our institutions of law have made
such practices unlawful does nothing to diminish their significance as matters of public concern.
If anything, it proves the point on which this court unanimously agrees: that the allegations in this
case involve matters of public concern for which the attorney general is authorized to bring suit.
25
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

decline to do so now. Instead, we look to the nature and significance of the impact

on our state and its people, consistent with Taylor, YAF, and City of Seattle. Properly

evaluated under that test, this action constitutes a matter of public concern and the

attorney general is authorized to maintain this action on behalf of the State under

RCW 43.10.030(1).

B. Issue Preclusion

Related to their arguments about the attorney general’s authority to bring this

action, the respondents ask us to give preclusive effect to the federal district court

summary judgment order, based on its discussion of quasi-sovereign interests. As

stated, the attorney general’s authority under Washington statutes is not equivalent

to the limits of article III standing. Thus, a prior order dismissing a case for lack of

standing in an article III court and remanding to state court cannot have preclusive