In re Transgender American Veterans Association v. Secretary of Veteran Affairs (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) – amicus brief
The State of Washington, joined by 17 other states and the District of Columbia, lead a multistate amicus brief concerning the Veteran’s Administration’s unreasonable delay in changing its rules to include gender-affirming surgery in the medical benefits package provided to veterans. This follows 2017 litigation on the same issue. In 2018, the litigation ended after the VA finally agreed to seek comments on a petition for rulemaking. After five years, however, the VA has still not formally started the rulemaking process. This amicus brief supports a change to the VA rules, arguing that the lack coverage for gender-affirming surgery harms veterans and the states in which they reside.
Ahmed et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) - amicus brief
The State of Washington, joined by 8 states and the District of Columbia, argued that unlawful delays in adjudicating asylum applications for Afghans who fled to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul as part of Operation Allies Welcome blocks the significant economic and societal benefits of immigrant integration and is contrary to the public interest.
A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
The State of Washington, joined by 20 other states and the District of Columbia, argued that a school policy prohibiting a transgender male student from using the boys’ restrooms at school based on sex assigned at birth constitutes sex-based discrimination in violation of Title IX and the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The states further provided evidence from their experience that allowing transgender students non-discriminatory access to sex-segregated bathrooms enhances the safety and privacy of transgender students while providing facilities that are no less safe or private for cisgender students.
Doe v. Mukwonago Area School District (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
The State of Washington, joined by 19 other states and the District of Columbia, argued that a school policy prohibiting a transgender female student from using the girls’ restrooms at school based on sex assigned at birth constitutes sex-based discrimination in violation of Title IX and the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The states further provided evidence from their experience that allowing transgender students non-discriminatory access to sex-segregated bathrooms enhances the safety and privacy of transgender students while providing facilities that are no less safe or private for cisgender students.
Roe v. Critchfield (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
The State of Washington, joined by 19 other states and the District of Columbia, argued that an Idaho statute prohibiting transgender students from using facilities that correspond with their gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination in violation of Title IX and the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The states further provided evidence from their experience that allowing transgender students non-discriminatory access to sex-segregated bathrooms enhances the safety and privacy of transgender students while providing facilities that are no less safe or private for cisgender students.
Mix v. Dimension Townhouses LLC, et al. (King County Superior Court) – amicus brief
The State of Washington argued that the Washington Law Against Discrimination requires housing providers to adjust rental payment due dates when doing so constitutes a reasonable accommodation for tenants with disabilities, and requires housing providers to engage in an interactive process with residents who request a disability accommodation in housing.
The State of Washington argued that a public hospital district violated the state Reproductive Privacy Act by declining to provide elective abortions despite offering maternity care services.
Fair Housing Center of Washington v. Breier-Scheetz Properties, LLC (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
The State of Washington argued that a housing provider may avoid liability for a practice with a discriminatory impact on a protected class only by showing that its practice is a business necessity.
The State of Washington argued that the Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits sexual harassment in a place of public accommodation and that the same legal standard that applies to discrimination in places of public accommodation based on other protected classes should apply equally to claims of discrimination based on sex.
Fulcher v. Veterans Administration (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and Washington State Supreme Court) — amicus brief
The State of Washington, joined by 9 states and the District of Columbia, argued that the Veterans Administration’s regulation categorically excluding “gender alterations” from its medical benefits coverage is discriminatory, poses public health risks to the states, and causes serious harm to transgender veterans.
The State of Washington argued that a new policy of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services frustrates the Washington Legislature’s work to align state law with federal immigration law and disregards Washington courts’ expertise in making the findings that vulnerable immigrant youth need to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS)—a pathway to legal residence.
The State of Washington, joined by more than 15 states and the District of Columbia, argued that discrimination against transgender students constitutes sex-based discrimination and harms states, poses serious public health risks, and causes serious harm to transgender people.
J.E.F.M. v. Lynch (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
The State of Washington, on behalf of itself and California, argued that immigrant children placed in immigration proceedings by the federal government have a due process right to representation by counsel at government expense.
Kaiser v. CSL Plasma (King County Superior Court) - amicus brief
The State of Washington argued that the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s broad definition of “a place of public accommodation” includes a blood donation center open to the public and that the blood donation center is not exempt from the Consumer Protection Act.
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) v. Sessions (W.D. Wash.) – amicus brief
The State of Washington argued that NWIRP’s provision of free and low-cost legal services to immigrants furthers the State’s interest in protecting consumers from notario fraud and promoting access to safe and affordable legal assistance. The State explained that an Executive Office for Immigration Review directive that NWIRP cease and desist from providing limited legal representation to individuals in removal proceedings would be detrimental to the public interest.
Sanchez Ochoa v. Campbell (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) – amicus brief
The State of Washington argued that local law enforcement officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they detain or prolong a detention solely for civil immigration purposes, and that Washington communities are safer when law enforcement limits its involvement with the civil immigration system. The State also argued that Washington jails cannot list immigration status information on public jail rosters.
Texas v. United States (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the U.S. Supreme Court) – District Court amicus brief
The State of Washington, on behalf of 12 states and the District of Columbia, argued that civil rights protections for transgender and gender non-conforming students and employees benefit the public interest and are workable to implement.
Wakefield v. City of Richland (Washington Court of Appeals Division III and Washington Supreme Court) – amicus brief
The State of Washington argued that courts may not use formal contempt proceedings to require an indigent criminal defendant to pay court costs and fines where the only available source of payment would be means-tested public assistance benefits.
Yakima Neighborhood Health Services v. City of Yakima (E.D. Wash.) – amicus brief
The State of Washington argued that the Washington Law Against Discrimination’s housing discrimination protections are at least as broad as the federal Fair Housing Act and prohibit municipal zoning and land use decisions that “make unavailable or deny” housing because of membership in a protected class, including disability.
Torres Hernandez et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor et al. (E.D. Wash.) – amicus brief
The Attorney General argued that Washington farmworkers perform skilled work that anchors the local food supply and boosts the economy, despite historically being paid poverty-level wages. The Attorney General also argued that farmworkers and their families have been asked to shoulder extraordinary burdens as essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In re Omeli (Snohomish County Superior Court) – amicus brief
The Attorney General argued that a district court’s failure to waive a County Auditor’s fee to record a legal name change under GR 34 has unique and substantial impacts on access to justice and the safety and well-being of transgender and gender-expansive Washingtonians.
Adams v. School Board of St. Johns Co., Florida (Eleventh Circuit en banc) – amicus brief
The State of Washington, joined by 22 other states and the District of Columbia, argued that prohibiting transgender students from using the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination in violation of Title IX and the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The states further provided evidence from their experience that allowing transgender students non-discriminatory access to sex-segregated bathrooms enhances the safety and privacy of transgender students while providing facilities that are no less safe or private for cisgender students.
Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and Northern Idaho v. Covenant Church, et al (Spokane County Superior Court) – amicus brief
The Attorney General argued that the Court constitutionally could apply the Interference with Health Care Facilities or Providers Act, and impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to protests in front of the Spokane Planned Parenthood clinic in order to protect Washingtonians’ access to health care.
Lewis v. Zanco, et al. (Washington Court of Appeals, Division III) – amicus brief
The Attorney General argued that the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Schwab, 103 Wn.2d 542 (1985), only precludes the availability of Consumer Protection Act claims against landlords where the conduct at issue is directly addressed and redressed by the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act. In all other matters involving residential housing, the Attorney General argued that Consumer Protection Act claims remain available.
Swiger v. Morales (Washington Court of Appeals Division III) – amicus brief
The Washington Office of Civil Legal Aid argued that the right for low-income tenants to court-appointed legal counsel must be consistently and uniformly implemented by trial courts. This includes an obligation to continue all legal proceedings in an unlawful detainer action once a tenant asserts their right to court-appointed counsel, and not permit substantive proceedings after a tenant invokes their right to counsel but before that counsel is appointed and prepared.
Kiemle & Hagood Co. v. Daniels (Washington Court of Appeals Division III) – amicus brief
The Attorney General argued that when a tenant requests a reasonable accommodation from their landlord due to a disability, the landlord may not require the tenant to provide third-party verification of the tenant’s disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation if the tenant’s disability and their need for the requested accommodation is known or obvious.
In re Gonzalez (Walla Walla County Superior Court) – amicus brief
The Attorney General argued that a district court’s failure to waive a County Auditor’s fee to record a legal name change under GR 34 has unique and substantial impacts on access to justice and the safety and well-being of transgender and gender-expansive Washingtonians.
Other Languages