Published on Washington State (https://www.atg.wa.gov)

H ome > Federal Litigation

Federal Litigation

Federal Litigation Summary

Last updated: 1/29/20

Amicus or "friend of the court" briefs authored or joined by Washington state in cases against the federal government can be found h ere.

Relevant Documents:

L etter to Sen. Schoesler detailing the cost to taxpayers related to this litigation.

L egal record of the Texas attorneys general against the Obama administration (49 Cases Filed, 7 Cases Won, 12 Cases Lost)

Legal Victories - Completed

O verview

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 The Trump Administration chose not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, rescinded the executive order, and agreed to reimburse Washington’s costs related to the appeal.

O verview

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.

The energy efficiency rules are estimated to reduce electrical consumption by about 200 billion kilowatt hours over the next three decades, saving consumers anywhere from $4.5 billion to $12.1 billion in energy costs.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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. As a result of the lawsuit, the EPA provided more than 1,700 pages of documents not previously made public. On May 10, 2019, the EPA agreed to pay Washington state $6,000 in attorney costs and fees to resolve the case.

O verview

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 June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in part Judge Firman's decision, and remanded the case back to the district court, agreeing that the evidence does not match the Secretary of Commerce’s explanation for the decision to add the question to the Census. On July 16, 2019, Judge Furman issued a permanent injunction barring the administration from adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

O verview

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.

As a result of the states' lawsuit, the Administration has produced thousands of pages of documents not previously disclosed, resolving the case as of Oct. 2, 2019.

O verview

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 appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On Oct. 10, 2019, a panel with the 9th Circuit upheld Judge Chhabria's decision, ruling that the Department of Energy acted contrary to its own rules by refusing to finalize the standards. In December 2019, the Department of Energy acted to publish the rules.

O verview

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. On April 19, 2019, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel ordered the EPA to make a final decision on the plaintiffs' objections within 90 days. After the EPA denied the states' objections, the states filed a separate petition challenging the EPA's denial of their objections.

O verview

On April 23, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted Washington’s motion to intervene in a case challenging the U.S. Navy’s practice of scraping the hulls of decommissioned vessels in a way that releases metals and other contaminants into Sinclair Inlet. This contamination can harm marine life up and down the food chain, including salmon and orcas.

In June 2017, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, the Washington Environmental Council and the Suquamish Tribe filed the lawsuit against the Navy, which asserts that the military branch violated the federal Clean Water Act by releasing toxic substances into the inlet without a permit. The lawsuit follows the Navy’s January 2017 efforts to blast marine debris off the hull of a 60,000-ton, decommissioned aircraft carrier before transport and scrapping. In doing so, the Navy released approximately 50 dump truck loads of solid materials into Puget Sound, including metals highly toxic to marine life.

On Jan. 29, 2020, the Navy agreed to a legally enforceable agreement requiring it to stop in-water scraping for 10 years. During the 10-year moratorium, the Navy must clean inactive ships that require scraping in a dry dock, out of the water, to prevent releasing materials directly into Puget Sound. In addition to the moratorium, the Navy must prevent additional environmental damage caused by the scraping of the ex-Independence by placing a layer of clean sediment on the impacted portions of Sinclair Inlet. The Navy must also reimburse the fees incurred by the Attorney General’s Office and other plaintiffs.

Legal Victories - Appealed or Could Be Appealed

O verview

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. Oral argument was heard on Jan. 25, 2019. On June 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review all three cases where an injunction was granted. Oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court is set for Nov. 12, 2019.

O verview

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 Nov. 12, 2019, Judge Lasnik vacated the Administration’s decision to allow the distribution of data files for downloadable, 3D-printed firearms, agreeing with arguments made by the states in their motion for summary judgment.

O verview

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. The Department of Justice appealed the ruling to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held on June 18, 2019.

O verview

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. The Administration appealed the injuction to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On Oct. 22, 2019, a panel with the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the states, and upheld the injunction.

O verview

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.

On March 28, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates granted the states’ motion for summary judgment, striking down the two provisions that form the crux of the rule, and saying it “is clearly an end-run around the ACA.” The Administration has appealed the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments are set for Nov. 14, 2019.

O verview

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.

On April 19, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris ruled that the Trump Administration must comply with federal law requiring federal agencies to conduct environmental review before taking actions that impact the environment.

O verview

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 states also seek to vacate the portion of the FCC's order preempting state and local regulation of broadband service.

On Oct. 1, 2019, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that while the FCC could repeal national “net-neutrality” rules, the FCC’s attempt to preempt state and local regulation of broadband services was invalid. The court’s decision allows Washington’s first-in- the-nation open internet law under the state Consumer Protection Act to remain in effect. Attorneys with the State of Washington primarily worked on the arguments against state preemption in the case.

O verview

On May 28, 2019, Washington filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington challenging the Trump Administration’s “conscience rule,” which gives health care professionals broad discretion to refuse lawful and medically necessary care to patients for religious

or moral reasons, even when the patient’s life is at risk. The lawsuit argues the rule would jeopardize access to reproductive health care, particularly for low-income and rural patients and allow providers to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. If the federal government believes Washington, its health care institutions, or other recipients of federal health care funds have violated the rule, it may cut off all health care funding to the state — more than $10 billion per year. On Nov. 7, 2019, Judge Stanley Bastian found the rule unlawful, striking it down nationwide.

Other Lawsuits against the Trump Administration in which Washington is the Lead

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

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.

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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 transferred to the Southern District of California. The case is currently pending in the Southern District of California.

O verview

On June 6, 2019, Washington filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to revise Washington’s water quality standards, which are used to determine how clean the state’s waters must be in order to protect human health. In 2016, EPA revised the standards. In February 2017, an industry group requested the EPA reconsider its 2016 revisions. In May of this year, more than two years later, EPA announced its decision to grant the industry group’s request without any evidence that the 2016 standards are insufficient.

Revising the standards now, Washington’s lawsuit argues, would create confusion and disrupt the work Washington has already completed to meet the standards. The revision is a violation of the Clean Water Act, which only allows the EPA to revise an existing standard if the standard is not stringent enough — which is not the case with Washington’s existing standards.

O verview

On July 9, 2019, Washington filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, asserting the U.S. Navy violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the National Historic Preservation Act by improperly analyzing the impact an expansion of its Growler program would have on human and environmental health and historical resources, and also failing to consider ways to minimize those impacts.

Growlers are aircraft that fly low in order to jam enemy communications. The expansion would increase Growler take-offs and landings to nearly 100,000 per year for the next 30 years. The lawsuit seeks to force the U.S. Navy to comply with the law and thoroughly analyze the dangers the increase in loud Growler traffic may pose to Washingtonians and wildlife on and around Whidbey Island.

O verview

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.

On April 25, 2019, District Court Judge Stanley Bastian granted Washington's request for a preliminary injunction, blocking the new rule from going into effect nationwide. On June 20, 2019, a three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction. On July 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted Washington’s motion for an en banc rehearing on the motion to stay Judge Bastian’s preliminary injunction. On July 11, 2019, the Ninth Circuit upheld its decision to stay the preliminary injunction in a 7-4 vote. Oral arguments before the en banc panel were held on Sept. 23, 2019.

O verview

On July 29, 2019, the Washington State Attorney General’s Office sought review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the Trump Administration’s May 29, 2019, decision to withdraw proposed 2016 regulations establishing minimum requirements for train crew staffing. The proposed regulations arose out of two devastating oil train accidents in 2013, in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and Casselton, N.D.

Washington asserts that the U.S. Department of Transportation’s and Federal Railroad Administration’s withdrawal of the proposed minimum staffing regulations violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Railroad Safety Act and related regulations.

O verview

On Aug. 14, 2019, Washington co-led a coalition of 13 states in filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over changes to the “public charge” rule that target immigrants and their families. The lawsuit asserts that the Trump Administration’s new rule unlawfully expands the definition of “public charge.”

Under the changes, if an immigrant who is legally in the country uses public benefits to which he or she is entitled ― such as food assistance to feed their U.S. citizen children or housing assistance ― even for a short time, the federal government may revoke their legal status, or even deport them.

Immigrant families will likely refrain from applying for services they need out of fear it would be used against their noncitizen family members. Washington estimates that more than 140,000 lawfully present Washingtonians, including many U.S. citizen children, will lose health insurance, and families who need help will forego up to an estimated $55 million annually in food or cash assistance.

On Oct. 11, 2019, District Court Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson granted the states' motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the Administration's public charge rule from going into effect while the case continues. On Dec. 5, 2019, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court injunction.

O verview

On September 19, 2019, Washington filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s diversion of nearly $89 million of congressionally approved military construction funds from the Bangor submarine base to help fund the president’s border wall. In its request for funding, the Department of Defense wrote about the Bangor pier project’s importance to military readiness, asserting that if the Bangor pier project is not funded, “full operational capability of the [transit protection] mission cannot be executed. [Nuclear Weapons Security] posture will continue to fall short of DoD directives and requirements.”

Ferguson asserts that the Trump Administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Articles 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution with his the president’s emergency declaration and subsequent diversion of congressionally appropriated funding. The Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to appropriate federal funds. Ferguson also alleges multiple statutory violations, including that the president’s emergency declaration was made in bad faith.

On Oct. 16, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara J. Rothstein issued an order prohibiting the Trump Administration from diverting the $89 million in construction funds for Bangor until Feb. 1,

2020, the date by which Judge Rothstein "will endeavor to issue a decision" in the case.

O verview

On Dec. 17, 2019, Washington filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the Trump Administration for arresting immigrants in and near courthouses in Washington. This practice is harmful to public safety and Washington’s justice system.

Since 2017, immigration authorities have arrested hundreds of immigrants in or near courthouses in Washington. Contrary to the assertions of immigration officials, evidence shows these arrests are not limited to dangerous individuals. Many were victims of crime or appeared in court on nonviolent charges, such as traffic offenses, with no prior criminal record. Others were there to register motor vehicles, pay traffic tickets or accompany a relative to court. The lawsuit asserts that civil arrests in and around courthouses violate long-standing common law privileges against such arrests. This conduct also violates the Tenth Amendment, which provides states the autonomy to control the operation of their judiciaries and prosecute crime without federal interference.

O verview

On Jan. 23, 2020, Washington filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the Trump Administration’s effort to allow 3D-printed gun files to be released on the internet by publishing new rules that would transfer regulation of 3D-printed guns from the State Department to the Department of Commerce, effectively allowing their unlimited distribution.

Other Lawsuits against the Trump Administration

Washington has filed 15 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.

O verview

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.

O verview

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 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.

O verview

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. On Oct. 25, 2019, the court recognized the EPA has a high bar to overcome the extensive evidence supporting these standards. The panel held that “if EPA’s rulemaking results in changes to the existing 2012 standards, it will be required to provide a reasoned explanation and cannot ignore prior factual findings and the supporting record evidence contradicting the new policy." However, the panel held that EPA’s withdrawal of the midterm evaluation could not be challenged at this time because it is not a final decision and doesn’t have any legal effect. The court’s ruling just means the states will need to re- file their case when the EPA issues a final decision to roll back its clean car standards.”

O verview

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.

O verview

On May 13, 2019, Washington and four other states filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), alleging HHS and its director, Secretary Alex Azar, are unlawfully attempting to reinterpret the Medicaid Act, disrupting well-established collective bargaining relationships authorized for decades by state labor laws. As part of its effort, HHS also repealed a federal rule that explicitly allowed states to deduct customary employee benefits and union dues from payments to workers in Medicaid home- and community-based services programs. Collectively, the states receive more than $6.5 billion in Medicaid funding for home- and community-based services. The case is currently pending in federal court.

O verview

On June 28, 2019, Washington joined 10 other Attorneys General to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to force the EPA to establish rules concerning industry reporting requirements for asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act. In January, Ferguson joined 14 other Attorneys General to petition the EPA to expand reporting of asbestos in manufacturing, importing and processing. In April, the EPA denied the petition, prompting the states’ lawsuit.

O verview

On Aug. 2, 2019, Washington joined 12 other attorneys general seeking review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the Trump Administration’s decision to reduce penalties for automakers that fail to meet corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. The Trump Administration’s new rule violates the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act by repealing a rule adopted under the Obama Administration which imposed an inflation-adjusted penalty of $14 for every tenth of a mile-per-gallon that an automaker falls below the CAFE standards, reducing the penalty by more than half to $5.50 per tenth of a mile-per-gallon. The CAFÉ penalties are an important tool to ensure car manufacturers continue to improve fuel efficiency in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful air pollutants. If penalties are not adjusted for the cost of inflation, some manufacturers simply roll penalties into the cost of doing business rather than complying with the standards.

O verview

On Aug. 7, 2019, Washington joined five other attorneys general seeking review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the Trump Administration’s decision to deny the states’ objections and allow the continued use of the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos. The states, in addition to

Hawaii and the District of Columbia, had previously intervened in a separate case seeking to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency completed its review of chlorpyrifos to protect farmworkers and those living in agricultural communities.

O verview

On August 13, 2019, the Washington state Attorney General’s Office and a coalition of 21 attorneys general and seven cities sought review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan and replace it with the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, which would not require significant carbon emission reductions.

According to the states’ petition for review, the repeal and replacement is a violation of the Clean Air Act. The new rule would result in an increase in air pollution compared to the Clean Power Plan.

The EPA’s own analysis shows that the increased pollution will likely cause thousands more illnesses and deaths per year. In Washington state, the rule could cause an increase in carbon emissions, even more than if the EPA chose to repeal the Clean Power Plan and do nothing to replace it.

O verview

On August 26, 2019, Washington and 19 other states filed a lawsuit challenging new Trump Administration rules that remove significant protections against the mistreatment of immigrant children and families apprehended at the U.S. border, allowing for their indefinite detention in facilities without adequate standards of care or state oversight.

The new rules, published August 23, 2019, override a longstanding court-approved settlement - known as the Flores Agreement - that governs the humane treatment of immigrant children in federal custody. The states' lawsuit asserts that the Trump Administration's new rules unlawfully permit federal officials to detain children and families in unlicensed facilities without adequate standards of care to protect the safety and well-being of immigrant children.

On Sept. 27, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee issued a permanent injunction in the original Flores case blocking the Administration from implementing its new rules. The states’ case, including a motion for an injunction and supporting declarations, was also pending before Judge Gee. In granting the injunction, Judge Gee agreed with many of the states’ arguments in their case.

O verview

On Sept. 20, 2019, the Washington state Attorney General’s Office and a multistate coalition of attorneys general filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Trump Administration’s attempt to block Washington’s and other states’ ability to set more stringent vehicle emission standards.

Washington and the states assert that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) exceeded its authority and violated Congress’ intent when it issued a regulation declaring that federal law prevents states from setting more stringent vehicle emission standards. Blocking these states’ ability to set stricter greenhouse gas vehicle emission standards would prohibit them from following any standards other than those set by the federal government, an action the states assert will increase greenhouse gas emissions, further exacerbating the impacts caused by climate change.

O verview

On Sept. 25, 2019, Washington, 17 states, the District of Columbia and the City of New York filed a lawsuit challenging Trump Administration rules that significantly undermine the Endangered Species Act, a cornerstone of national conservation law. The lawsuit argues that rules illegally and arbitrarily weaken essential protections in the Endangered Species Act and that the federal government failed to consider the environmental impacts of these changes in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Washington is home to 49 species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, including southern resident killer whales, pygmy rabbits, green sea turtles and several salmon species such as chinook, chum and sockeye. The new rules gut essential protections for these species by making it more difficult to protect their critical habitat, making it easier for federal agencies to take actions that may jeopardize species’ survival and recovery, and removing recovery as a key consideration in delisting a species. Three species in Washington — western pond turtles, wolverines and Island Marble butterflies — are candidate species, meaning they are under consideration for threatened or endangered status. These species, and others needing protections in the future, are more likely to be denied federal protection under the new rules.

O verview

On Nov. 4, 2019, Washington joined 15 other attorneys general and the City of New York to file a petition for review with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Department of Energy’s

rollback of energy efficiency standards for lighbulbs. The rules would save consumers at least $12 billion in annual electricity costs, equal to nearly $100 per household. The rules would also reduce national annual greenhouse gas emissions by 34 million metric tons.

O verview

On Nov. 15, 2019, Washington and 23 other attorneys general and two cities filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the Trump Administration’s decision to revoke California’s Clean Air Act waiver, which allows it to set vehicle emissions standards that are more stringent than the federal government’s. California’s stricter standards have been adopted in whole or part by Washington 12 other states.

O verview

On Dec. 20, 2019, Washington joined 14 other Attorneys General and the City of New York to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which defines the “waters of the United States.” The rule provides much-needed clarity about which waters qualify for protection under the Clean Water Act. The EPA’s action would replace the rule with 1980s-era regulations. The “waters of the United States” rule applies the Clean Water Act to both navigable waters and