Source: http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight.aspx?catID=102&cat=Court%20Decisions,%20AGO%20Opinions%20and%20Regulations
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:05:31+00:00

Document:
A recent Washington Supreme Court ruling found that the Spokane Valley Fire District's policy prohibiting employees from using department email accounts to send religious messages violated the First Amendment. This post looks at the implications for public agencies statewide.
On August 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Contest Promotions v. City and County of San Francisco, providing its first official guidance on the question of whether Reed v. Town of Gilbert controls the regulation of commercial speech as well as noncommercial speech. In this blog post, MRSC Legal Consultant Robert Sepler gives an overview of this case.
On June 8, the Washington Supreme Court issued its opinion in Columbia Riverkeepers v. Port of Vancouver, adopting a very narrow interpretation of the executive session “exception” to the OPMA for discussion about the sale or lease of real estate (the “minimum-value exception”). In this blog post, guest author Ramsey Ramerman breaks down the case.
This is the fifth post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. This post explores whether one can have a vested right to use a permit-exempt well as the water source for development (subdivision or building permit).
This is the fourth post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. This post considers two additional questions: (1) the potential impact of the Hirst decision on counties that do not plan under the GMA; and (2) whether Hirst has application to issues other than water.
What is a “Determination of Water Availability” Under Hirst?
This is the third post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. In Hirst, the Washington Supreme Court made clear that counties have the responsibility under the Growth Management Act to make determinations of water availability for development permit approval. This post discusses what exactly is a “determination of availability” and how it is different than a “determination of adequacy” under chapter 19.27 RCW.
This is the second post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. This post provides an overview of the water resource responsibilities and options that GMA counties now have in light of the Hirst decision.
This is the first post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. This post provides a general overview of the decision, which held that counties have the responsibility under the GMA to make determinations of water availability for development permit approval and cannot defer to Ecology or rely upon the decision of others when making these determinations.
You may have seen the news that, on March 7, 2016, the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, AFDI v. King County, refusing to enjoin King County Metro’s 2013 rejection of an ad, titled “Faces of Global Terrorism,” for display on its buses. Metro had concluded that the ad failed to meet its advertising guidelines, and the plaintiff American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) sought to overturn Metro’s decision on free speech grounds. This action by the Court will likely be significant for local governments as they consider the extent to which they can enact and enforce similar restrictions.
After the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert four months ago striking down that Arizona town’s sign code as being unconstitutionally content-based, some commentators, including one from The New York Times, were quick to raise the alarm that the decision would have consequences far beyond local sign codes. Although the decision has undoubtedly created uncertainty, it has not yet led to any such consequences so far in the Ninth Circuit, the federal circuit that includes Washington State.
On June 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an Arizona town’s sign code placed unconstitutional content-based restrictions on speech, in violation of the First Amendment. The court’s decision in Reed v, Town of Gilbert almost certainly places many sign ordinances throughout the state, and the country, on questionable legal footing.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.