Superior Court transfers challenge to Senate Bill 5974 to Thurston County, declines to decide emergency injunction

A superior court on the record in Cause No. 2620005926 granted the state's motion to shorten time, allowed plaintiffs to dismiss the governor and the legislature as parties, and transferred the case challenging Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974 to Thurston County, while declining to decide plaintiffs' emergency motion for a preliminary injunction.

The court said good cause existed to shorten time so the venue question could be resolved first, noting the risk of issuing substantive relief that would later be reversed if venue proved improper. "So, I'm going to grant the motion to shorten time, which is going to bring us to the motion to change venue," the chair said after questioning counsel about notice and prejudice.

The Washington Attorney General's Office, represented by Noah Purcell, had urged the court to decide venue before the merits and cited RCW 4.12.020 (mandatory venue for actions against public officials) and related case law. "We believe the court has to decide the motion to change venue before it can reach potentially reach the substance of the plaintiff's motion," Purcell said, arguing that the statute at issue was adopted and implemented in Olympia (Thurston County).

Plaintiffs' counsel Mark Lamb opposed shortening time, saying his clients had only about 24 hours to respond to a flurry of state filings and that the schedule prejudiced their ability to brief weighty constitutional claims. Lamb told the court the statute would force sheriffs to submit an attestation tied to certification and called the requirement a threat to First Amendment rights: "That my clients will be subjected to an unconstitutional loyalty oath, the likes of which we haven't seen in this country for 60 years," he said.

After hearing argument on mandatory-venue principles under RCW 4.12.020 and the discretionary transfer statute RCW 4.12.030(3) (the "ends of justice" inquiry), the court found the potential for divergent rulings and judicial inefficiency substantial enough to justify transfer. The judge noted a related preliminary-injunction motion by the Washington State Sheriffs Association was noted in Thurston County for May 1 and concluded a single forum should decide overlapping claims.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs' on-the-record motion under CR 41 to dismiss the governor and the legislature as defendants and said it would permit that dismissal for the purposes of going forward. The court declined, however, to resolve whether other defendants named in the amended pleadings — including individuals tied to the Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) or the Washington State Patrol — must remain parties; it left that question for further proceedings.

On the question whether the preliminary-injunction motion required immediate in-court decision, the court declined to decide the merits prior to transfer. The chair said that, while mindful of plaintiffs' urgency around filing week and an attested form expected to be published May 1, expedited appellate mechanisms exist and resolving venue and consolidation in Thurston County advanced the interests of justice: "I'm not going to rule on the preliminary injunction matter yet," the chair said.

The court directed counsel to prepare and circulate an order reflecting the rulings, and it asked the Attorney General's Office to draft the transfer order. It instructed court staff and counsel to expedite the transfer of the record so the Thurston County case can be heard on its noted schedule.

The procedural rulings send the dispute over Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974 — including plaintiffs' claim that the measure's certification/attestation requirements violate the First Amendment — to Thurston County for further proceedings and any decision on emergency injunctive relief.

What happens next: the case record will be transferred to Thurston County; parties may proceed with the related hearing there (the AG indicated that hearing is noted for May 1), and any party seeking emergency appellate relief can pursue expedited procedures after a Thurston County ruling.