Under Washington State canons of statutory construction, what is the canon of constitutional presumption? Here’s my point of view.
(IMPORTANT: This article is for informational purposes only and is based upon my point of view. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content in this article. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct legal advice from your attorney. Please review our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy before proceeding.)
THE CANON OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION
According to the canon of constitutional presumption, Washington courts “presume statutes are constitutional, and the party challenging constitutionality bears the burden of proving otherwise.” Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission, 481 P.3d 1060, 1064 (Wash. 2021) (citing Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals , 158 Wash.2d 208, 215, 143 P.3d 571 (2006), overruled in part by Chong Yim v. City of Seattle, 194 Wash.2d 682, 451 P.3d 694 (2019)).
There are two types of lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of a statute: (1) the as-applied challenge; and (2) the facial challenge.
THE AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE
The as-applied challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute is based on “a party’s allegation that application of the statute in the specific context of the party’s actions or intended actions is unconstitutional.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). According to the Washington Supreme Court in Woods, “Holding a statute unconstitutional as-applied prohibits future application of the statute in a similar context, but the statute is not totally invalidated.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
THE FACIAL CHALLENGE
A facial challenge is a claim that a statute is unconstitutional on its face — that is, that it always operates unconstitutionally. To ascertain whether a law is facially invalid, “courts must be careful not to exceed the facial requirements and speculate about hypothetical cases.” Id. (citing Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449-50, 128 S. Ct. 1184, 170 L. Ed. 2d 151 (2008)). Washington courts generally disfavor facial claims. See id. (citing State v. McCuistion, 174 Wash.2d 369, 389, 275 P.3d 1092 (2012). Accordingly, a “facial challenge must be rejected unless there is no set of circumstances in which the statute[, as currently written,] can constitutionally be applied.” Id. (In re Det. of Turay , 139 Wash.2d 379, 417 n.27, 986 P.2d 790 (1999) (emphasis and alteration in original) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
LEARN MORE
If you would like to learn more, then consider contacting an experienced attorney to discuss your case. This article is not offered as legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client relationship with Law Office of Gregory A. Williams or the author of this article; please refer to our Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy for more information.
-gw