Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 925 v. Dep't of Early Learning, 450 P.3d 1181

Background

In Nov. 2016 the Evergreen Freedom Foundation submitted a Public Records Act (PRA) request to the Department of Early Learning for names and addresses (and contact info) of in‑home family child care providers participating in Washington’s Working Connections Child Care (WCCC) program.
Voters approved Initiative 1501 on Nov. 8, 2016 (effective Dec. 8, 2016), which exempted and forbade release of "sensitive personal information" of vulnerable individuals and in‑home caregivers (including WCCC family child care providers) from disclosure under the PRA.
SEIU Local 925 (representing the providers) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent release of the records; the trial court denied injunctive relief but delayed release pending appeal; the Court of Appeals originally held the law governing a PRA dispute is the law in effect when the request was made.
The core legal questions were (1) whether a PRA request creates a constitutionally protected vested right that prevents subsequent statutory exemptions from applying and (2) whether I‑1501 is "triggered" by the PRA request date or by an agency’s release obligation (i.e., whether it applies to pending requests).
The Washington Supreme Court held that a PRA request does not create a vested right and that I‑1501’s relevant provisions are triggered by an agency’s release obligation, so the initiative applied when the trial court ruled and barred release of the requested records; the case was remanded to consider remaining injunction prerequisites.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a PRA request creates a constitutionally protected vested right to inspect responsive records	Foundation: yes — a PRA request vests a right to disclosure that the legislature cannot retroactively defeat	SEIU/State: no — vested‑rights doctrine protects property/contract rights; a PRA request is not equivalent	Held: No. A PRA request does not create a constitutional vested right; prior appellate authority treating a PRA request as vested is overruled
What event "triggers" application of I‑1501/RCW 43.17.410(1): the time of the PRA request or the agency’s release obligation	SEIU: the initiative is triggered by the agency’s obligation to release (or a court order to release); therefore it applies to pending requests once effective	Foundation: the law governing a PRA dispute is the law in effect when the request was made; otherwise agencies could delay and rely on later exemptions	Held: Trigger is the agency’s release obligation (i.e., the statute governs release when it is effective at the time of actual release/obligation to release); I‑1501 therefore applied when the trial court ruled
Whether I‑1501 barred disclosure of the requested WCCC provider information and what remains on remand	SEIU: I‑1501 bars release and SEIU is entitled to injunctive relief if other prerequisites met	Foundation: I‑1501 cannot be applied to preexisting requests; release was permissible under law at request time	Held: I‑1501 barred release when the trial court issued the preliminary ruling; Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration of the remaining injunction prerequisites

Key Cases Cited

John Doe A v. Washington State Patrol, 185 Wn.2d 363 (2016) (discussed timing of governing law in PRA context)
Caritas Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 123 Wn.2d 391 (1994) (vested‑rights doctrine and limits on retroactive legislation)
In re F.D. Processing, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 452 (1992) (definition and examples of constitutionally protected vested rights)
In re Personal Restraint of Flint, 174 Wn.2d 539 (2012) (analysis of the triggering event for statutory amendments and retroactivity concerns)
Dragonslayer, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n, 139 Wn. App. 433 (2007) (appellate decision treating pending PRA requests as vested — overruled here)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (retroactivity and fairness considerations in applying new statutes)