Washington AG defends expanded powers

Washington AG defends expanded powers

The Washington Attorney General’s Office pushed back against criticism of giving it more power to demand records and compel testimony without judicial oversight, calling Republican concerns “baseless Chicken Little predictions.”

Republican lawmakers say House and Senate Democrats are granting Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, too much authority to conduct warrantless searches, especially of politically disfavored groups.

The attorney general will have to provide a report in four years on the number of “civil investigative demands” it issues. The Legislature could intervene before then, attorney general spokesman Mike Faulk said in an email.

“The Legislature is a whole branch of government with tremendous oversight powers,” he said. “If these baseless Chicken Little predictions were to come true, it would take a lot less than four years for that to become apparent.”

Civil investigative demands precede formal enforcement action. Republicans claim a partisan attorney general could issue demands to fish for violations and harass politically disfavored groups.

Washington law allows the attorney general to issue civil investigative demands to look into Medicaid fraud, consumer protection violations and rent control violations.

Senate Bill 5925, passed by the House and Senate, will expand the power to allow the attorney general to investigate constitutional violations, as well as discrimination and labor law violations.

The attorney general also will be able to demand records and testimony related to how counties operate jails and whether law enforcement agencies are helping federal immigration agents in violation of the state’s sanctuary law.

If the target of an investigation declines to cooperate, the attorney general could obtain a court order imposing sanctions.

The attorney general needs to fill a gap because the Trump administration has “thoroughly undermined civil rights and worker protections,” according to Faulk. Brown has sued the second Trump administration 53 times.

“CIDs allow us to more effectively and efficiently investigate violations we’ve been directed to look into,” Faulk said.

The attorney general’s office says there are other checks to the agency. “The state bar association watches lawyer conduct, and so does the electorate when they choose the attorney general,” Assistant Attorney General Chalia Stallings-Ala’Ilima told the House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee last month.

The Washington State Bar Association’s legislative affairs manager sent a letter to committee members stating the bar association does not monitor lawyers, including in the attorney general’s office.

The bar association investigates grievances, but the state Supreme Court has exclusive responsibility for discipling lawyers, the letter stated.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether a civil investigative demand issued by a state attorney general can be challenged in federal court on constitutional grounds.

Former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin demanded the names of donors to faith-based crisis pregnancy centers. The centers claim the request chills their First Amendment rights of association.

At a hearing before the court in December, New Jersey’s lawyer admitted the state had received no complaints about the centers.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation said it received civil investigative demands from the Washington attorney general’s office.

The foundation, a gun-rights organization, challenged the demands in federal court, but were rebuffed. Its options were to challenge the demand in state court, refuse to cooperate and wait for an enforcement action or hope the attorney general announces the investigation is over, according to the foundation, a gun-rights organization.