Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 961328.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,726 chars
legislative favoritism. E.g., Ass’n of Wash. Spirits & Wine Distribs. v. Wash. State

Liquor Control Bd., 182 Wn.2d 342, 359, 340 P.3d 849 (2015) (citing Grant County

Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wn.2d 791, 805, 811, 83 P.3d 419

(2004)). Still, this independent, antifavoritism analytical framework “did not

overrule our long line of article I, section 12 cases addressing laws that burden

vulnerable groups” on state equal protection grounds. Schroeder, 179 Wn.2d at 577.

Under the antifavoritism framework, the terms “privileges” and “immunities”

“pertain alone to those fundamental rights which belong to the citizens of the state

by reason of such citizenship.” State v. Vance, 29 Wash. 435, 458, 70 P. 34 (1902).

The threshold question in our antifavoritism analysis is whether the challenged

statute implicates or encroaches on a fundamental right of state citizenship.

Schroeder, 179 Wn.2d at 572.3

3
If a statutory benefit does not first encroach on a fundamental right of state
citizenship, this constitutional inquiry ends. See, e.g., Grant, 150 Wn.2d at 814;
Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle, 163 Wn.2d 92, 102-05, 178 P.3d 960 (2008) (determining
that while the constitutional inquiry under article I, section 12 must end because the right
at issue there was not a fundamental right, courts would still analyze the disputed law under

-9-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, 96132-8
(Stephens, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part)

As for the threshold question, the majority holds the fundamental rights

implicated here are the right to an individual’s sexual orientation and the right to