Category: Constitutional Law

Posted on

Canon of Constitutional Presumption

Canon of Constitutional Presumption

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.)

Advertisement 



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

Posted on

Property Interests in Continued Employment: WA State

Property Interests in Continued Employment: WA State

In Washington State, do Washington State civil service employees–dischargeable only for cause–have property interests in continued employment? 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. This article may be a repost from one of our retired blogs. Please review our Disclaimer|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy before proceeding.)

Advertisement
 




GOLDBERG TWO-STEP PROCESS

In Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), “[t]he Supreme Court … enunciated a two-step process for analyzing cases involving deprivation of a governmental benefit” in violation of due process, as follows:

1. it must first be ascertained whether the interest at issue is a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest; and

2. if the interest is a protected one, the court must determine if the deprived beneficiary has been afforded due process.

See Belnap v. Chang, 707 F.2d 1100, 1102 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

In relation to element 1 above, “property interests are not created by the Constitution, they are created, and their dimensions are defined, by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source, such as state law. . . .” Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 53 USLW 4306 (1985) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).

RELEVANT WA STATE LAW

Accordingly, the Washington State Supreme Court has held that “protected property interests can arise from express or implied contracts for continued employment, objective representations of tenure, . . . or even collective bargaining agreements providing for continued employment.” Danielson v. City of Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 788, 796, 742 P.2d 717 (1987) (internal citations omitted). As a result, “constitutionally protected property interests may arise in public employment where civil service laws provide an express or implied contract for continued employment.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

CONCLUSION

Thus, I believe that civil service employees dischargeable only for cause have protected property interests in continued employment. See id. at 796-97 (internal citations omitted).

Example: Danielson v. City of Seattle

For example, in Danielson, a Seattle police officer committed theft and was subsequently discharged. The Seattle Municipal Code and the Seattle City Charter established that no civil service employees may be discharged from employment except for cause. As a result, the court held that the police office had a property interest in continued employment. Id.

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.

Call Now Button