Background
A coalition of individuals, builders, trade associations, labor unions, a nonprofit, and utilities sued members of the Washington State Building Code Council and the Washington Attorney General in their official capacities. The plaintiffs alleged that the Washington State Energy Code, effective March 15, 2024, restricted natural-gas appliances and was preempted by federal law. They sought prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the code.
Washington law assigns adoption and amendment of the code to the Council but requires cities and counties to enforce it through measures including building-permit review. The Council may provide local officials with nonbinding interpretive opinions. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on sovereign-immunity grounds, denied leave to amend, and did not reach standing.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the Ex parte Young exception did not permit the suit because none of the named state officials had the required connection to enforcement of the challenged Energy Code. Promulgating a regulation, without more, is distinct from enforcing that same regulation. The Council members’ authority to issue nonbinding opinions also was insufficient because local governments retained the statutory duty and power to enforce the code regardless of the Council’s advice.
The Attorney General likewise lacked a role beyond a generalized duty to enforce state law. The plaintiffs identified no statute, regulation, case, or official action giving the Attorney General a particular enforcement responsibility for the Energy Code. Because every named defendant was protected by sovereign immunity, the panel did not decide standing or the merits of the federal-preemption claim. Judge Bumatay concurred in the judgment, agreeing that circuit precedent in Mecinas v. Hobbs did not control while arguing that Mecinas was wrongly decided and should be reconsidered in an appropriate case.
Key Takeaways
- For Ex parte Young to apply, a state official must have a specific connection to enforcement of the particular law being challenged.
- An official’s promulgation of a regulation does not, by itself, establish that the official enforces that regulation.
- Nonbinding advice to local enforcers and an attorney general’s generalized law-enforcement authority were insufficient to overcome sovereign immunity.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that plaintiffs challenging state regulations in federal court must identify officials who actually possess enforcement authority under state law. Naming officials who wrote a regulation, interpret it informally, or possess broad responsibility for state law may not satisfy Ex parte Young.
The ruling leaves unresolved whether Washington’s Energy Code is federally preempted. It rests solely on sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs’ selection of defendants, with the panel indicating that local governments—not the state officials sued here—enforce the challenged code.