Pasado's Safe Haven v. State
259 P.3d 280
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Pasado's Safe Haven challenged RCW 16.50.110(3)(b) and RCW 16.50.150 as unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions
- Pasado's sought declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act and a 'taxpayer derivative' type remedy
- The Act defines two humane slaughter methods, including ritual slaughter when required for religious practice
- The trial court held Pasado's had taxpayer standing but dismissed on summary judgment, and Pasado's appealed
- The Court of Appeals examined justiciability and severability as the controlling questions rather than addressing merits
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Pasado's claim justiciable under the UDJA? | Pasado's argues for partial invalidation to resolve controversy | State contends the relief would be advisory and not final | Not justiciable; partial invalidation would not conclusively resolve the dispute |
| May the court strike only the challenged provisions while leaving the rest of the Act intact? | Partial invalidation would cure the constitutional infirmities | Legislative intent and interdependence require full invalidation if any provision is invalid | No; partial invalidation would broaden the Act and is not permitted |
| Would severing the challenged provisions contravene legislative intent or criminal law policy? | Legislature would have preferred partial correction | Partial invalidation would widen the statute's scope and criminalize what legislature allowed | Yes; severing would broaden to include prohibited scope and is improper |
| Is Pasado's relief precluded because defining crimes is a legislative function? | Court could declare provisions unconstitutional while preserving others | Criminalization decisions rest with the legislature, not the judiciary | Yes; judicial invalidation of partial provision would usurp legislative power |
| Did Pasado's have standing to pursue a 'taxpayer derivative' action or UDJA action? | Pasado's has standing as a taxpayer-derived declaratory claimant | Standing issue is not properly framed; UDJA is the sole path for declaratory relief | The court did not rely on a standing ruling; it affirmed dismissal on justiciability grounds and treated the UDJA as the operative vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936) (complete invalidation required when severing infirm provisions alters legislative intent)
- Inland Empire Refineries, Inc. v. State, 3 Wash.2d 651, 101 P.2d 975 (1940) (severing provisions can extend the act beyond legislative intent; complete invalidation may be required)
- Griffin v. Eller, 130 Wash.2d 58, 922 P.2d 788 (1996) (legislative intent governs whether partial invalidation is permissible)
- To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wash.2d 403, 27 P.3d 1149 (2001) (UDJA declaratory judgments require a justiciable controversy)
- DiNino v. State, 102 Wash.2d 327, 684 P.2d 1297 (1984) (four-part justiciability test for declaratory judgments)
- Tattersall v. Yelle, 52 Wash.2d 856, 329 P.2d 841 (1958) (taxpayer standing analysis applied to UDJA actions)
- Boeing Co. v. State, 74 Wash.2d 82, 442 P.2d 970 (1968) (invalid statute is a nullity; effect is to restore prior law)