Source: https://www.atg.wa.gov/federal-litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:03:23+00:00

Document:
Amicus or "friend of the court" briefs authored or joined by Washington state in cases against the federal government can be found here.
Letter to Sen. Schoesler detailing the cost to taxpayers related to this litigation.
The travel ban separated families, divided employers from employees, and prohibited students and professors from resuming studies in the United States. In addition, many individuals lawfully in Washington state were denied the right to visit family members abroad, or travel for business. When Washington challenged the constitutionality and legality of the travel ban in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on January 30, 2017, individuals with green cards and valid visas were subject to the travel ban and being turned away at airports.
Washington’s complaint included dozens of declarations from Washington businesses, colleges and universities, and national security experts.
Judge James Robart, appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled in Washington’s favor on February 3, 2017, granting a nationwide temporary restraining order. On February 9, in a unanimous opinion, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction. The Trump Administration chose not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, rescinded the executive order, and agreed to reimburse Washington’s costs related to the appeal.
On March 31, 2017, the Washington state Attorney General’s Office and a multistate coalition of attorneys general sought review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the administration’s unlawful delay in implementing new energy efficiency rules for ceiling fans. After the states filed the lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Energy conceded and announced that the rules would go into effect.
On June 20, 2017, state attorneys general intervened in a lawsuit against the EPA challenging delays in implementing a rule regulating emissions from new oil and gas facilities. The rule provides important protections for Washington’s residents against the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that has more than 80 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. The effects of methane cannot be reversed or undone.
On July 3, the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of Washington state, finding that the EPA had violated the Clean Air Act. Industry intervenors sought en banc review. On August 10, 2017, with an 8-3 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court denied en banc review.
On August 1, 2017, 15 states, including Washington, filed suit against the EPA in the D.C. Circuit after Administrator Pruitt announced his decision to delay designating which areas of the country met the new ground-level ozone standards. The next day, Administrator Pruitt reversed course and withdrew the decision to delay.
On September 20, 2017, Washington and eight other states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after the Federal Highway Administration unlawfully suspended the effective date of an important rule aimed at reducing greenhouse gases without notice or opportunity for comment. The rule requires states to measure the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by on-road vehicles on the national highway system and to set targets for reducing those emissions.
The Federal Highway Administration has since conceded and announced the rules would immediately go into effect pending a procedurally valid repeal.
On December 5, 2017, Washington and 14 other states filed a lawsuit accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of violating the Clean Air Act by delaying air quality standards for ground-level ozone pollution. After Washington and 15 other states filed a lawsuit in July 2017, the EPA withdrew its decision to delay the deadline for designating which areas around the country did and did not comply with new standards. However, the EPA failed to meet the October 1, 2017, deadline for the designations.
On March 12, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted summary judgment in favor of the states, ruling that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act and ordering the agency to adopt the designations by no later April 30, 2018. The EPA complied with the order on April 30.
On July 19, 2018, Washington and 16 other attorneys general filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging an Environmental Protection Agency action that effectively suspends strict limits on “glider” trucks — new heavy-duty trucks manufactured with highly polluting, refurbished engines that do not comply with modern emissions standards. The action, taken by outgoing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on his last day with the agency, allows manufacturers to put thousands more of the high-polluting trucks on the road before any formal process to modify or repeal the strict limits, instituted in 2016, is completed. On July 26, 2018, EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler issued a memo withdrawing the guidance suspending the limits on glider trucks.
On July 6, 2017, Washington joined 18 other attorneys general to file a lawsuit in the D.C. District against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The lawsuit followed DeVos’ announcement that the Department of Education was delaying indefinitely the implementation of the “borrower defense regulations,” which were set to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The borrower defense regulations provide important consumer protections for prospective, current, and former students of for-profit colleges. For example, under the rules, a state attorney general’s successful litigation against a school for violating consumer protection laws can make its students automatically eligible for student loan forgiveness.
The states’ case was consolidated with a similar challenge, Bauer v. DeVos. On Sept. 12, U.S. District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss granted the motion for summary judgment of Washington and the other Plaintiff States and ruled the Department of Education improperly delayed implementation of the rules. The rules went into effect on Oct. 16.
On January 31, 2018, Washington filed a lawsuit claiming that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission failed to respond to the Attorney General’s Office’s Freedom of Information Act request, seeking communications among FERC commissioners. The state’s November 2017 FOIA request asked for emails and other written communications during a tumultuous time at FERC, including periods in which the Commission failed to have a quorum, failed to hold any public meetings, and considered a proposal from the Department of Energy that would have upended the energy markets. As a result of Washington's lawsuit, FERC has provided hundreds of pages of documents and paid the Attorney General's costs and fees, resolving the case as of Nov. 13, 2018.
On July 24, 2017, Washington and 10 other states filed a petition for review with the D.C. Circuit over the Trump Administration’s unlawful delay of the Chemical Disaster Rule. The 2010 Tesoro refinery explosion in Anacortes and other high-profile accidents across the nation prompted the Chemical Disaster Rule. On Aug. 18, 2018, a panel with the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Trump Administration’s delay of the Chemical Disaster Rule violated the Clean Air Act. The Administration decided not to appeal the ruling.
On April 1, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Washington’s motion to intervene in a case accusing the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service of violating the Magnuson-Stevens Act by refusing to publish a final regulation designed to address the “bycatch” of endangered and threatened marine species by the gillnet fishery. After a multi-year public process, the Pacific Fishery Management Council proposed the new rules, which the National Marine Fisheries Service initially endorsed. After public comments, the National Marine Fisheries Service reversed its endorsement, and refused to publish the final regulations. Oceana, an environmental advocacy organization, sued over the reversal.
On Oct. 24, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner granted Oceana’s motion for summary judgment, agreeing that the Administration’s reversal violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The federal government appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. Washington filed a motion to intervene in the case on Jan. 23, 2019.
On April 15, 2019, the Administration filed a volutary motion to dismiss its appeal of the District Court ruling, allowing the District Court's ruling to stand.
On September 6, 2017, Washington and 16 other states filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York seeking to halt President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The president’s decision ends protections for 17,000 Dreamers in Washington state alone. Dreamers were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own. They are attending our universities, working for our state agencies and local governments, and contributing to our economy. In addition to seeking a halt to the president’s decision to end DACA, this lawsuit seeks to prevent the federal government from misusing personal information Dreamers provided the government in good faith in order to sign up for DACA after being promised that information would not be used to deport them or their families.
On February 13, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis granted the states' request for a preliminary injunction, blocking President Donald Trump's effort to end the DACA program. On March 29,2018, Judge Garaufis ruled that the states' constitutional challenge to Trump's decision can go forward. The injunction enjoins the cancellation of DACA for current recipients and requires the Department of Homeland Security to accept and process renewal applications for current DACA grantees. The injunction protects nearly 18,000 Washingtonians who are DACA grantees and, as a result, can work and go to school in our State. The federal government has appealed the preliminary injunction, along with the trial court’s orders denying the government’s motions to dismiss the case. The appeals of the three district court orders (two orders on motions to dismiss and the preliminary injunction order) have been consolidated before Second Circuit. The oral argument date has not yet been set by the appeals court.
On June 13, 2017, Washington and 10 other states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over the Trump Administration’s unlawful delay of new energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, portable air conditioners, and other appliances. The standards will save consumers at least $4.7 billion in energy costs.
On Feb. 15, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria granted the states' motion for summary judgment, and ordered the administration to publish the new standards within the next 28 days. The administration has appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been stayed pending the appeal. Oral argument was scheduled for Nov. 14.
Washington, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, et al.
On July 30, 2018, Washington, seven states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint and a motion for temporary restraining order, arguing that Trump Administration actions to allow the distribution of data files for downloadable, 3D-printed firearms violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tenth Amendment. On July 31, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik granted Washington's request for a temporary restraining order blocking the distribution of the data files for downloadable 3D-printed firearms.Judge Lasnik converted the TRO to a nationwide preliminary injunction on August 27, 2018.
On June 6, 2017, Washington, six other states, and the District of Columbia filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit to intervene in this case, in order to ensure that the EPA completes its review of the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos to protect farmworkers and those living in agricultural communities. The motion to intervene in the case was granted in December 2017. Two months later, two additional states joined the lawsuit.
On August 8, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the EPA’s decision to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos, and ordered the EPA to revoke all uses on food within 60 days. The EPA petitioned for en banc review on Sept. 25. The court has not issued a decision on whether to grant en banc review.
On July 18, 2018, Washington and five other states filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the Department of Justice’s decision to restrict certain law enforcement grant funds only to those jurisdictions that assist the federal government with its civil immigration priorities. The government’s decision to condition the funds on whether states and localities provide access and information to federal immigration enforcement authorities jeopardizes nearly $3.3 million awarded to Washington state through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. The case is currently pending in federal court.
On Nov. 30, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the states' motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the Department of Justice's conditions on the grants were unlawful, and enjoined the department from imposing the conditions for the grants.
On Dec. 18, 2018, the Washington state Attorney General’s Office joined a multistate lawsuit in the Northern District of California challenging President Trump’s final rules restricting contraception access.
If allowed to go forward, President Trump’s rules could have a significant impact on more than 1.5 million Washington workers and their dependents who receive insurance through their employer’s self-funded plan. One study by the Center for American Progress found that contraception costs can generally exceed $1,000 a year without insurance coverage. Some Washington women who currently use contraception may be denied no-cost coverage and be forced to turn to state-funded programs to receive the care they need. State-funded reproductive health services helped more than 90,000 patients in 2016 alone. More than three-quarters of those patients were women who used contraception, saving the state an estimated $160 million in maternal and birth-related costs, according to a report from the Washington State Department of Health.
On Jan. 13, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. granted the states' motion for a preliminary injunction, which blocks the rules from going into effect in all states that are involved in the challenge, as well as the District of Columbia, until the case is resolved.
On April 3, 2018, Washington, 16 other states and the District of Columbia, in addition to six cities and San Francisco County, filed a lawsuit to block the addition of a question regarding U.S. citizenship to the 2020 Census. The lawsuit argues that, according to the Census Bureau’s own research, adding such a question will depress participation in the Census, potentially resulting in an undercount that will adversely impact congressional representation and jeopardize some of the billions of dollars in federal funding allocated based on Census data.
On Jan. 15, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse M. Furman barred the Census Bureau from adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
On July 26, 2018, Washington and 11 other attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging a Department of Labor rule that allows small businesses and self-employed individuals to join association health plans, which could significantly draw healthy people out of state health care exchanges. According to the lawsuit, the rule, published June 21, 2018, unlawfully expands the definition of “employer” as passed by Congress. This conflicts with the clear statutory structure Congress set up when it passed the Affordable Care Act. The states’ lawsuit argues that expanding this definition requires an act of Congress, meaning the Trump Administration cannot do it unilaterally.
Washington v. Azar, et al.
Subject: Title X "gag rule"
On March 5, 2019, Washington filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington challenging the Trump Administration’s “gag rule” that impacts Title X, the federal funding program for reproductive healthcare and family planning services. The Trump Administration’s new rule imposes a “gag” on Title X providers that prohibits them from referring their patients to abortion providers. It also requires Title X providers to refer each pregnant patient into a prenatal care program, regardless of the patient’s wishes or the provider’s medical judgment.
If not blocked, the rule will force out of the program health care professionals who provide nearly 90 percent of Title X family planning services to Washington patients, keeping thousands of vulnerable Washingtonians from reasonably accessing contraception, cancer and STI screening and other family planning care.
Karnoski et al. v. Trump, et al.
Washington is home to 60,000 members of the active and reserve military, including over 8,000 soldiers and airmen in the Washington National Guard. The National Guard is integral to Washington’s emergency preparedness and disaster recovery planning. President Trump’s ban on transgender individuals in the military applies to Washington’s National Guard as well as the active duty military, restricting the Guard’s recruiting pool.
Our motion to intervene was granted on November 14, 2017. On December 11, 2017, Judge Marsha Pechman granted a preliminary injunction, blocking President Trump's ban on transgender individuals in the military while the case moves forward. The Department of Justice moved to dissolve the injunction on March 27, 2018. Judge Pechman denied the motion on April 13. The Administration appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments on Oct. 10. The three-judge panel has not issued a ruling on the appeal. On Jan. 22, 2019, by a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction, allowing the ban to go into effect while litigation continues.
Washington v. Trump, et al.
On October 9, 2017, the Washington state Attorney General’s Office filed suit in the Western District of Washington challenging President Trump’s interim rules restricting contraception access.
In November of 2018, the Administration issued new final rules, replacing the interim rules at issue in Washington’s lawsuit. As a result, on Dec. 18, 2018, Washington voluntarily dismissed its case challenging the interim rules without prejudice and joined a separate multistate lawsuit, California v. Azar, challenging the new final rules.
Judge Robart heard Washington’s challenge to the revised travel ban on March 15. Before he could rule, judges in Maryland and Hawaii issued nationwide injunctions blocking the implementation of the ban. Judge Robart chose not to issue a ruling given that the revised travel ban was already halted. Washington amended its complaint when the third travel ban was issued.
On October 11, 2017, Washington filed a revised complaint in the Western District of Washington challenging President Trump’s third travel ban. President Trump’s third attempt at a travel ban is broader than previous iterations because rather than imposing a “temporary pause,” it indefinitely bans immigration by individuals from affected countries. Washington’s complaint includes dozens of declarations from individuals, universities, state agencies, healthcare system administrators, and businesses regarding the travel ban’s adverse impacts. Judge Robart chose not to issue a ruling. Washington voluntarily withdrew its lawsuit on Nov. 2, 2018, retaining the right to refile the case if circumstances warrant it.
State of Washington v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
On May 3, 2018, Washington filed a lawsuit claiming the Environmental Protection Agency failed to respond to the Attorney General’s Office’s Freedom of Information Act request, seeking communications from the EPA to advisory committee members regarding the EPA's new policy barring scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on advisory committees. The case is currently pending in federal court.
Washington state leads a coalition of 17 states (plus DC), in a challenge to the Administration’s policy of separating immigrant families along the SW border. The States claim that the Administration violated the constitutional rights of families by separating parents and children without any finding that the parents are unfit or pose a threat to the children, and that family separation is not a legitimate a means of deterring immigration. The States also argue that the Administration has been violating federal asylum laws by turning away families that present at ports of entry, that they have interposed unnecessary burdens on reunification, and that the stated intention to house families indefinitely in detention centers is also impermissible. Parents who were separated from their children were detained at the Federal Detention Center in Seatac, and a number of children were detained in Seattle and other locations in Western Washington. Several family members remain in our state as their immigration matters proceed.
The States filed the lawsuit in Seattle in late June, and it was recently transferred to the Southern District of California. The case is currently pending in the Southern District of California.
Washington has filed 12 additional lawsuits against the Trump Administration. These legal actions are all part of multistate lawsuits with another state serving as the lead. This approach allows states to operate efficiently by sharing the work.
California, et al. v. Zinke, et al.
On May 9, 2017, Washington and three other states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division, challenging the Department of the Interior’s decision to restart a program to lease coal-mining rights on public land without supplementing or replacing its nearly 40-year-old environmental study about the environmental harms of mining on federal land. The case is currently pending in federal court.
On October 14, 2017, Washington, 16 other states, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s decision to unilaterally terminate cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which reduce out-of-pocket health care costs for low-income Americans. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, asserts that the president’s decision to withhold the payments is illegal and unconstitutional. The Trump Administration’s action will increase the premiums of 100,000 Washingtonians by as much as 28 percent.
After the lawsuit was filed, Washington and several other States made a regulatory change that permitted many of the Washingtonians who would have been injured by the president’s decision to obtain increased premium subsidies for their health insurance purchased on exchanges. As of this date, the Trump Administration had acquiesced in this regulatory change. On July 18, 2018, Judge Vince Chhabria granted the states’ motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, allowing the states to file a new lawsuit in the future on the same issue if prompted by further federal action.
On October 17, 2017, Washington, 16 other states, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education for unlawfully delaying the gainful employment rule. The gainful employment rule keeps colleges from offering worthless degrees and leaving their graduates with high levels of debt. It denies federal financial aid to schools whose graduates do not make enough money to repay the student loans they took out to earn their degrees. Motions for summary judgment were argued before the court on May 1, 2018. The court has not yet issued a decision.
Massachusetts, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
On October 17, 2017, Washington joined nine Attorneys General in a lawsuit accusing the Trump Administration of failing to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request regarding information on federal immigration enforcement. Nearly four months earlier, the Attorneys General requested the information from U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services and U.S. Customs & Border Protection, all agencies within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The AGs filed suit after the agencies failed to disclose the information. The case is currently pending in federal court.
New York, et al. v. Pruitt, et al.
On Feb. 6, 2018, we joined 10 other Attorneys General to file a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to suspend the “waters of the United States” rule. The rule provides much-needed clarity about which waters qualify for protection under the Clean Water Act, and which waters are only regulated by sometimes inconsistent state laws. The “waters of the United States” rule applies the Clean Water Act to both navigable waters and upstream waters that impact the chemical, physical and biological integrity of navigable waters, providing uniformity for state and federal regulators and project managers alike. The states await a decision from the court on motions for summary judgment.
After judges in other, similar cases prevented the Administration from suspending the "waters of the United States" rule, the Administration notified the court that it would not pursue appeals or continue to defend the suspension in this case. The Court dismissed the case.
On Feb. 22, 2018, Washington, 21 other states and the District of Columbia sought review of the Federal Communications Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order. The states contend the FCC's decision to repeal Obama-era “net neutrality” rules violates the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Communications Act of 1934. The appeal is currently proceeding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case is currently pending in federal court.
On April 5, 2018, state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the EPA and EPA head Scott Pruitt, challenging delays in implementing a rule regulating emissions from existing oil and gas facilities. Once the EPA adopts a rule to limit emissions from new and modified facilities in a given industrial sector, which it did in 2016, it must establish guidelines for limiting emissions from existing facilities. Pruitt abruptly ordered the EPA to halt the process for establishing guidelines for existing oil and gas facilities in March 2017. The rule provides important protections for Washington’s residents against the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that has more than 80 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Existing oil and natural gas facilities will account for up to 90 percent of the total methane emissions by facilities in 2018. The case is currently pending in federal court.
On May 1, 2018, Washington and 17 other states filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced his decision to restart the approval process for vehicle emissions standards for car and light-duty truck models produced between 2022 and 2025. The standards ensure that new vehicles have better fuel economy and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA had determined in January 2017 that these standards were viable for the auto industry, but Pruitt rescinded the standards without providing any evidence that invalidates the EPA’s 2017 determination. The states allege that Pruitt’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedures Act and the Clean Air Act. The case is currently pending in federal court.
On June 27, 2018, Washington and 10 other Attorneys General filed a lawsuit accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of violating the Clean Air Act by improperly reversing a rule that prohibited the use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, in response to a narrow DC Circuit ruling. HFCs are a powerful type of greenhouse gas used in air conditioning, refrigeration, aerosols and fire retardants. Their global warming potential is 300 to 1,000 times greater than carbon dioxide. The case is currently pending in federal court.

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