Authors: Andrew C. Cook, Seth L. Cooper
State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- More on D.C. Inauguration preparation and plans - WDVM 25
- Councilmember working to rename streets after late trailblazers - WDVM 25
- Utah activist who allegedly rioted at US Capitol has been arrested - Salt Lake Tribune
- Politico Staff Objects After Right-Wing Star Ben Shapiro Writes Newsletter - The New York Times
- Experts warn of vaccine stumbles ‘out of the gate’ because Trump officials refused to consult with Biden team - The Washington Post
- Across the years, Biden’s path to the presidency - Washington Post
- Abortion memorial scheduled in Bloomington; Central Catholic not going to D.C. march - Bloomington Pantagraph
- New Yorkers at the U.S. Capitol Riot Face Charges - The New York Times
- California high court: ABC test for gig workers is retroactive, in blow to Uber, Lyft - San Francisco Chronicle
- ‘Toxic and authoritarian’: WA high court says Benton sheriff may have committed felony - Tri-City Herald
Scholarship & White Papers
-
Washington Supreme Court Position 6: A Debate
Pugent Sound Lawyers Chapter, 28 September 2010 – Event Audio/Video
Featuring: Richard B. Sanders, Charlie Wiggins, Peter Callaghan, David K. DeWolf, Stewart Jay
Media & Commentary
-
Washington Supreme Court Rules on Attorney General’s Discretion to Enter Litigation in Two Landmark Cases
The Washington Supreme Court in September issued two of its most highly-anticipated rulings in recent years. Continuing public controversy over federal health care law and the attorney general’s authority to join the states in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the law provided the backdrop to City of Seattle v. McKenna.1 The exercise of the eminent domain power and the attorney general’s discretion in representing state agencies is at issue inGoldmark v. McKenna.2 The pair of rulings addresses the Washington attorney general’s powers under the constitution and laws of Washington State—although opinions written by justices of the court raise their own questions about whether the scope of the attorney general’s powers were addressed consistently.
-
Washington Supreme Court Upholds School Funding Structure: Disparities in School Employee Pay Not Unconstitutional
On November 12, 2009, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously declined to declare as unconstitutional the state’s educational funding structure.1 The case asked whether the state legislature is constitutionally compelled to equalize state allocations to school districts for school employee salaries.