Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




City of Federal Way v. Koenig

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Litigation.png

This WikiFOIA article is a stub. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article.

City of Federal Wayvs.Koenig
Number: 82288-3
Year: 2009
State: Washington
Court: Washington State Supreme Court
Other lawsuits in Washington
Other lawsuits in 2009
Precedents include:
This case established that administrative judicial records are not subject to open records request under Washington law.
WikiFOIA
Find your State
Sunshine Laws
Open Records laws
Open Meetings Laws
How to Make Records Requests
Sunshine Legislation
2010
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Litigation
Sorted by State, Year and Topic
Sunshine Nuances
Private Agencies, Public Dollars
Deliberative Process Exemption
Susan Owens, author of Federal Way v. Koenig

City of Federal Way v. Koenig was decided by the Washington State Supreme Court on October 15, 2009.

Important Precedents

This case established an exemption from public records requests for all documents within the judicial branch of government, including administrative documents and inter-branch communications.

Ruling of the Court

In its ruling, the court holds that Washington's Public Disclosure Act does not apply to state judicial records.[1]

The 7-2 decision was written by Susan Owens.

The majority opinion says in part:

"We previously considered this issue in Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 300, 730 P.2d 54 (1986) where we held that the PRA does not apply to court case files because the judiciary is not included in the PRA's definition of "agency." Id. at 305-06. We conclude that Nast continues to stand for the principle that the PRA does not apply to the judiciary and that the appellant has not demonstrated a compelling reason to overturn Nast. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we will overturn precedent only if it is incorrect and harmful and appellant has failed to demonstrate either. Thus, this court affirms the trial court and holds that the PRA does not apply to the judiciary."

The Korsmo concurrence

In his concurrence, Korsmo says he disagrees with the conclusion the court reached in 1986 in Nast v. Michels but goes along with the majority because of stare decisis, writing, "only the Legislature should overturn the longstanding constructon of a statute."

The Stephens dissent

Debra Stephens, in her dissent, says that Nast did not speak to the issue of whether courts are an agency as a matter of law and that the state's Public Records Act should be interpreted liberally.

She writes:

"In the end, I believe we do a disservice to interpret the PRA, a broad mandate for open government, to exempt entirely the judicial branch of government. Nast is not stare decisis on this question, and courts plainly meet the statutory definition of "agency" in RCW 42.56.010. It seems to me the PRA speaks for itself: The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know."

Associated Cases

See also

External links

References

  1. The Olympian, "State Supreme Court: judiciary's documents are not public records," October 15, 2009