Judge won't compel state panel to scrap building codes targeted by gas initiative
A gas ring on a domestic stove powered by natural gas. ()
A Thurston County judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit that sought to force the state Building Code Council to move faster in aligning energy rules for new construction with provisions in the natural gas initiative Washington voters approved in November.
But Superior Court Judge John Skinder said he hoped the legal effort launched by the Building Industry Association of Washington 'does put the council on notice.'
'This type of action, it does have a purpose,' Skinder said as he granted the state's motion to toss the case.
The Building Industry Association of Washington spearheaded the effort to pass Initiative 2066, which became law Dec. 5. It amends and repeals regulations and laws intended to move the state away from natural gas and toward technology like electric heat pumps in new construction.
Among its targets are revisions to the residential and commercial building energy codes that took effect in March 2024. Those rules, which offer builders permitting incentives for choosing electric heat pumps instead of natural gas furnaces, are unenforceable, the group says.
Following November's election, the homebuilding association pressed the Building Code Council to erase the rules. Council members declined. Instead, they opted to have their technical experts review those rules and initiative language and recommend any changes needed to bring everything into alignment.
The builder group sued in December to force the council to act faster than the timetable set out in its mid-November meeting. They argued for emergency rulemaking to resolve conflicts between the new law and the rules.
On Friday, July Simpson, an assistant attorney general representing the Building Code Council, said the association was seeking a way around the process with its complaint.
Sydney Phillips, representing BIAW, disagreed. She said association members sought clarity on a 'consequential' issue — which codes are enforceable and which are not — to ensure they are in compliance. While the court could direct the council to undertake emergency rulemaking, it wasn't a specific request of the association, she said.
Following Skinder's ruling, a BIAW official said a new complaint would be filed against the Building Code Council in the coming days contending its actions violated a state law known as the Administrative Procedures Act.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit to invalidate the entire voter-approved initiative is proceeding in King County Superior Court.
Opponents sued in December, contending Initiative 2066 is unconstitutional because it runs afoul of a provision limiting citizen initiatives to no more than one subject and requiring them to contain the full text of the portion of state laws they would alter.
A judge will consider the arguments in a March 21 hearing.
Plaintiffs in this lawsuit include Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action, Front and Centered, King County and the city of Seattle. Washington is the sole defendant.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Immigrant rights groups sue to invalidate Trump administration's El Salvador prison deal
A coalition of immigrant rights groups on Thursday sued to invalidate the Trump administration's deal to house detainees in a notorious prison in El Salvador, saying the arrangement to move migrant detainees outside the reach of U.S. courts violates the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., notes that the administration has argued that those sent to El Salvador are beyond the reach of U.S. courts and no longer have access to due process rights or other U.S. constitutional guarantees. The deal, the plaintiffs allege, 'is contrary to law. And it was entered into without any legal basis.' The administration has sent hundreds of migrants to El Salvador, including some it accuses of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The administration in March agreed to pay $6 million for El Salvador to house 300 migrants. President Donald Trump has said he'd like to eventually send U.S. citizen criminals to the Salvadoran prison, though that'd likely be unconstitutional. The lawsuit notes that the State Department has reported that inmates in El Salvador's prisons may be subject to 'harsh and life-threatening' conditions, torture and lack access to reliable food, water and medical care. The prisons are run by the government of El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, who once called himself 'the world's coolest dictator' and has posted images of detainees sent from the U.S. getting marched into his centerpiece prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In one notorious case cited in the lawsuit, the Trump administration has not returned Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man it deported to El Salvador in violation of a judge's order, saying the man is no longer in its custody. That was the administration's argument when another judge ordered it to halt deportations under an 18th century wartime act — that the deportees were on a plane to El Salvador and outside the legal reach of federal judges. The suit was filed by Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Immigrant Equality, the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice and Democracy Forward, which is co-counsel in a separate lawsuit over the initial flights to El Salvador. Thursday's lawsuit says the deal violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which prevents agencies like the State Department, which reached the deal with El Salvador, from undertaking unconstitutional or otherwise illegal acts. In addition to violating the constitution, the suit notes that housing prisoners in El Salvador violates the First Step Act, a law requiring federal prisons to try to house inmates close to home. That law was signed by Trump in 2018.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
State says lawsuit by Rye lobster shack should be dismissed
The state says a lawsuit filed by the owners of a popular Rye lobster shack against the Pease Development Authority, claiming they were targeted by former Port Authority Director Geno Marconi in a campaign of 'extortion, intimidation, and corruption,' should be dismissed because 'none of the plaintiffs' claims has legs.' Rye Harbor Lobster Pound, owned and operated for more than 27 years by Sylvia Cheever and Nathan Hanscom, filed the lawsuit in January in Merrimack County Superior Court against the Pease Development Authority (PDA) and its Division of Ports and Harbors (the Port Authority). The Lobster Pound leases land from the PDA at Rye Harbor. The lawsuit names Marconi and Paul Brean, executive director of the PDA, alleging Marconi improperly influenced the PDA and the Port Authority. It accuses Marconi, whose family owns and operates Geno's Chowder and Sandwich Shop in Portsmouth, of using his power to 'harm a competitor to his family business and in retaliation against the plaintiffs who were not part of Marconi's network of allied businesses and individuals who worked for or were otherwise connected with the Port Authority.' In response to the suit, the Attorney General's Office said the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief. 'The plaintiffs have failed to state any viable claim under the (Administrative Procedures Act) or the state or federal Constitution that would entitle them to prospective relief,' the AG's Office wrote. 'The plaintiffs' claims against the PDA, the Division of Ports and Harbors, and Paul Brean should therefore be dismissed in their entirety.' Marconi, 73, who was placed on paid administrative leave from the Port Authority in April 2024, is scheduled to go to trial in November on felony charges of witness tampering and falsifying evidence. He faces two felony and four misdemeanor indictments that allege he shared protected motor vehicle details and pier permit fee information about Neil Levesque, vice chairman of the PDA and director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. The lawsuit alleges the PDA and Port Authority implemented 'harsh, anti-business policies' that 'specifically target Rye Harbor Lobster Pound due to its competition with Marconi and other businesses aligned with him in Rye Harbor State Marina.' Those policies and actions, the suit says, include imposing an unauthorized and illegal tax, framed as a 'concessions fee' of 10% on the lobster pound's gross sales, a fee not applied to other similar businesses; interfering with its relationships with local fishermen; removing parking spots and harassing and interfering with its customers. The lawsuit asks the court to prevent the defendants from 'applying and enforcing their illegal rules to Rye Harbor Lobster Pound's prejudice,' and seeks compensatory damages. The AG's Office argues the plaintiffs do not allege any facts that, when taken as true, would support claims of negligence against the PDA. 'Indeed, they fail to identify any purportedly negligent acts in their complaint at all,' the state's motion says. 'The facts alleged in the complaint likewise do not support an inference that the plaintiffs suffered serious mental and emotional harm, much less identify any objective physical symptoms the plaintiffs allegedly suffered. In the absence of either of these elements, the plaintiffs have necessarily also failed to allege that the defendants' negligence foreseeably caused their emotional harm.' pfeely@
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Yahoo
Judge halts Trump administration action barring Harvard from enrolling foreign students
Hours after Harvard University sued the Trump administration for revoking its ability to enroll international students, a federal judge temporarily barred the Department of Homeland Security from allowing the change to take effect. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, a Barack Obama appointee, granted the Ivy League school's request for a temporary restraining order on May 23 because, she wrote, the Trump administration's new policy would bring "immediate and irreparable injury" to Harvard's campus. The provisional ban took effect immediately and will remain in place until the judge decides whether to issue a broader pause while the two sides battle in court. A hearing to consider a preliminary injunction is set for May 29. Harvard's complaint, filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, called the Trump administration's move a "blatant violation" of the First Amendment, Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedures Act. In a message to the Harvard community, the university's president, Alan Garber, condemned what he called an "unlawful and unwarranted action." Read more: 'Harvard refugee': Chinese students seek legal advice after Trump blocks enrollment "It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams," he said. Read more: International college students bring billions to the US. Here's why that may change. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sent a letter to Harvard's leadership on May 22 saying the school's ability to participate in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, a prerequisite for colleges and universities to enroll international students, would be terminated "effective immediately." All international students would need to transfer to another university to stay in the United States, she said. "This action should not surprise you and is the unfortunate result of Harvard's failure to comply with simple reporting requirements," Noem wrote in the letter. The punishment dated back to April 16, when Noem first ordered that Harvard produce troves of detailed information about every international student attending the school. "This demand was unprecedented, seeking information far beyond what DHS's regulations require Harvard to maintain and report and far beyond any request Harvard has received in its more than 70 years hosting foreign students under the F-1 visa program," the university's lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. Read more: Trump has been defunding university research. Does China benefit from it? Still, the university said it had complied within the scope of federal law and its reporting requirements, producing thousands of data points about its entire student population with F-1 visas. Those responses, Noem said May 22, were "insufficient." She then gave the university 72 hours to deliver more information, including "any and all" disciplinary records of nonimmigrant students enrolled at the school over the last five years. Noem's unprecedented act, which effectively prevented Harvard from enrolling foreign students, marked arguably the biggest escalation in the Trump administration's battle with the university, which has already had billions of dollars in federal research funding frozen. The campus is separately being investigated over whether it should maintain its tax-exempt status. The effective ban at Harvard created a chilling effect at other colleges nationwide, while imperiling operations at the storied campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard," the school's lawyers argued in the new complaint. Harvard's nearly 7,000 international students make up roughly a quarter of the university's population. As the summer begins, many are awaiting further guidance from the school about what they should do next. The government's actions came just days before graduation. (This story has been updated to add new information.) Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Judge halts Trump admin from barring Harvard international students
