Opinion ID: 3052620
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lobbying activity

Text: Costco contends that WBWWA is not innocent because its lobbying led the Washington Legislature to pass the unconstitutional direct-sales privilege. This argument is also at odds with Zipes because it suggests that an intervenor may be found blameworthy without any prior finding of liability for engagement in unlawful activity. See 491 U.S. at 762-63. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that WBWWA lobbied for the direct-sales privilege or that such lobbying was the reason for the enactment of the privilege. iii. Compliance with the unconstitutional state laws [4] Costco further contends that WBWWA is not innocent because it adhered to the direct-sales privilege, thereby ensuring the law’s discriminatory effect. Again, the argument disregards the definition of “innocent” found in Zipes. Id. Because WBWWA was not found liable under § 1983 for adhering to the discriminatory direct-sales privilege, WBWWA is innocent for the purpose of determining fee liability under § 1988(b). Id. 10766 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. v. HOEN