Watson v. City of Seattle
93723-1
| Wash. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- Seattle Ordinance 124833 (effective Jan 1, 2016) levies a $25 tax per firearm and $0.02–$0.05 per round of ammunition on retail sales in city limits, paid by licensed retailers into a dedicated Firearms and Ammunition Tax Fund for research and gun-violence programs.
- Plaintiffs (Watson, Carter, and associations) sued claiming the charge is a regulatory fee preempted by RCW 9.41.290 (state preemption of firearms regulation) or, alternatively, an unauthorized local tax exceeding municipal taxing authority.
- King County Superior Court granted summary judgment to Seattle; the Court of Appeals certified the question to the Washington Supreme Court, which accepted direct review.
- The Supreme Court applied the Covell three-factor test to distinguish taxes from regulatory fees (primary purpose, dedicated use of funds, and direct relationship between fee and regulatory burden).
- The Court concluded the ordinance’s primary purpose is revenue for public benefits (research/programs), the per-unit flat charges lack a demonstrated direct relation to the economic burden of gun violence, and segregation of funds was inconclusive — overall classifying the measure as a tax.
- The Court held the tax is authorized by RCW 35.22.280(32) (broad taxing authority for first-class cities) and that RCW 9.41.290 preempts only firearms regulation, not municipal taxation, so no preemption applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tax vs. regulatory fee | The charge is a pretextual regulatory fee designed to burden gun sales and thus is preempted by state law | The ordinance’s primary purpose is raising revenue for public programs; it is a tax | The charge is a tax under Covell (primary purpose and lack of direct burden relationship) |
| Statutory authorization to tax | Even if a tax, RCW 35.21.710 and similar statutes limit municipal business taxes and make this tax unauthorized or non-uniform | RCW 35.22.280(32) grants broad taxing authority to first-class cities and RCW 35.21.710 applies only to gross-receipts–measured taxes | Authorized: RCW 35.22.280(32) permits this excise-style flat per-unit tax; RCW 35.21.710 does not bar non–gross-receipts taxes |
| Preemption by RCW 9.41.290 (field or conflict) | RCW 9.41.290 broadly preempts all local laws "relating to" firearms, so a firearms-specific municipal tax is preempted | RCW 9.41.290 preempts regulation of firearms; it does not mention or evidence intent to preempt taxation | No preemption: RCW 9.41.290 occupies the regulatory field, not municipal taxation; the statute’s plain text and context exclude taxes |
| Remedy / scope | Ordinance should be invalidated in whole as an impermissible local firearm regulation | Ordinance should be upheld as a lawful municipal tax within delegated authority | Ordinance upheld: tax classification, legislative authorization, and no statutory preemption; affirmed summary judgment for Seattle |
Key Cases Cited
- Covell v. City of Seattle, 127 Wn.2d 874 (Wash. 1995) (three-factor test to distinguish taxes from regulatory fees)
- Okeson v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn.2d 540 (Wash. 2003) (charges imposed to raise money are taxes; courts should scrutinize labels)
- Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 143 Wn.2d 798 (Wash. 2001) (discussion of regulatory fees versus taxes)
- Citizens for Financially Responsible Gov't v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn.2d 339 (Wash. 1983) (RCW 35.22.280(32) delegates broad taxing authority to first-class cities)
- Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Seattle, 172 Wash. 649 (Wash. 1933) (municipal licensing has dual purposes: regulation and revenue; excise characterization)
- Brown v. City of Yakima, 116 Wn.2d 556 (Wash. 1991) (standards for field and conflict preemption)
- Lawson v. City of Pasco, 168 Wn.2d 675 (Wash. 2010) (harmonizing statutes and ordinances; conflict preemption analysis)