The state Attorney General's Office is trying to revive efforts in Washington Supreme Court to sue a small Yakima Valley city for evicting Latino residents.
In a 2019 civil rights lawsuit, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson accused the city of Sunnyside of using police to illegally evict Latino residents, alleging the city and five law enforcement officers abused the city's crime-free rental housing program.
Ferguson's effort faltered when a Yakima County Superior Court judge ruled in Sunnyside's favor and granted summary judgment to the city and the five officers the state was suing, dismissing all of the state's claims.
The city did not respond to interview requests.
In the latest chapter of the four-year legal battle, the state asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision and send the case back to the lower court for trial.
The Attorney General's Office alleges Sunnyside police officers directed residents to vacate their homes, sometimes ordering residents to pack up their belongings and leave within hours or days. The evictions happened entirely outside the judicial process, with nothing filed in court, according to the lawsuit. The state alleges the city forced at least 43 people out of their homes without due process.
In one case, the lawsuit alleges an officer forced a couple to leave their home in hours. The couple became homeless for more than a year.
In 2016, police evicted a woman and her family after a fight involving the woman occurred near their housing complex, the lawsuit alleges. No charges were filed.
In 2018, a man was forced to leave his home after his daughter, who did not live with him, was arrested in the residence, the lawsuit alleges. He had lived there for eight years and later didn't have a home for a month.
And the lawsuit alleges a code enforcement officer told a woman her family had to leave their rental property within three days because two girls her daughter was hanging out with at the house stole beer from a nearby shop. The woman complied.
The lawsuit also alleges Sunnyside was 26% more likely to enforce the crime-free rental housing program in census blocks with high Latino populations, 76% more likely to enforce it in blocks with high concentrations of female-led households and 35% more likely to enforce it in blocks with high numbers of families with children.
During oral arguments on June 15, the city of Sunnyside claimed Ferguson doesn't have the authority to get involved in the local matter.
The Attorney General's Office believes it does have that authority when preventing discrimination or unlawful actions.
According to the city's attorneys, there's no evidence actions related to the crime-free rental housing program have the potential to spread beyond Sunnyside.
Moreover, they say, some of the claims about the evictions were inadmissible because they were hearsay. The lower court agreed with that point.
Ferguson, they argue, is attempting to usurp authority from Washington's courts.
"The state would have the court believe this is a case of discrimination against women and children. It's not. It's a case about overreach," said Kirk A. Ehlis, an attorney for Sunnyside, during oral arguments.
In response to Ehlis' argument that the Attorney General's Office is stretching its authority, Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis questioned whether one could say the same about the Sunnyside Police Department.
Ehlis said the department has not been pursuing the program since the attorney general sued the city. Program officers have received training.
Colleen M. Melody, representing the Attorney General's Office, said the city's argument that Sunnyside's municipal practices would somehow have to affect people across the state would prevent the attorney general from ever bringing a civil liberties case against a municipality.
"If any case bears on a matter of public concern sufficient to meet that test, then this case, involving civil rights, police accountability and the residential housing rights of Washingtonians, must qualify," Melody said during oral arguments.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which filed an amicus brief in the state's favor, says crime-free rental housing program ordinances are often abused and have historically been enforced with racial discrimination.
ACLU-WA Legal Director La Rond Baker said such ordinances are likely to target the most vulnerable people in a community — people who can't defend themselves — such as those with lower incomes. "And so we're looking to ensure that the rights of those people are not trampled through these crime-free housing programs," she said.
Melody said there's precedent that the state must prevent discrimination, making this lawsuit historically necessary.
Judge Debra L. Stephens questioned, though, if that's the case.
"Should we have any concern about that immense power of all the resources of the (Attorney General's) Office to bring an individual suit in an individual jurisdiction?" Stephens said.
The justices will issue an opinion at a later date.
