Washington’s public affairs network, TVW, aired an episode of The Impact following the public hearing. The show examined HB 1380, with sponsor Rep. Mia Gregerson, D-SeaTac, stating it’s not about giving out settlements; she said it provides a framework for passing reasonable laws. 

Of the 2,386 unique names signed into the hearing, just over 54% supported HB 1380. Only 21 testified before the House Appropriations Committee, with two-thirds against the bill. The ordeal drew perspectives from across the state, including several elected officials, attorneys and residents. 

“This, in no way, shape or form, is to codify Martin v. Boise,” Gregerson told TVW. “The litigation is really about solving the problem … objectively reasonable is a very well-established legal standard, and I will admit I am not a lawyer, but it doesn’t take much to talk with legal experts.”

Martin v. Boise was a 2018 court case that ruled that cities can’t enforce anti-camping ordinances that don’t provide enough shelter for homeless people. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2024. 

If approved, HB 1380 would allow people to sue over the “objective reasonableness” of local laws regulating sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors in public spaces. 

If the court rules in favor of a plaintiff, the municipality must adjust its regulations, which can cost as much as $7,000 each. A judge could also require the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees. HB 1380 wouldn’t create a private right of action, but it would apply to existing laws.

Committee staff noted that, in some cases, the legislation would allow individuals to sue over laws a municipality passed and considered legal before HB 1380. Those in opposition raised concerns over the term “objective reasonableness” and how the courts would interpret it. 

The U.S. Supreme Court established the standard in 1989 over a case regarding excessive police force. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “objective reasonableness” protects “personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the government.”

“The objectively reasonable standard is untested, and it’s vague, which means costly litigation,” Christina Schuck, the deputy city attorney for Kent, testified. “Outside counsel estimated a lawsuit would cost $350,000 to $500,000 in Superior Court alone; if the city loses, that amount could more than double to pay for plaintiff’s fees.”

Supporters say HB 1380 aligns with the recent SCOTUS ruling overturning Martin v. Boise. The lower ruling prohibited police from enforcing anti-camping laws unless the municipality provided enough shelter beds. The Grants Pass v. Johnson decision overturned the Martin ruling last June.

Those who supported the bill argued that it doesn’t prohibit enforcement like Martin; instead, it requires that the laws be objectively reasonable. Oregon passed a similar law in 2021, which allowed a group of homeless people to sue Portland, which led the city to settle for $175,000. 

Another group filed a lawsuit last month in Grants Pass, Oregon, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling seven months earlier that the city was within its rights to enforce the ordinances. However, the two lawsuits mentioned have been the only ones filed since Oregon passed the law years ago. 

“It is a misrepresentation to claim that there will only be an influx of cases,” Fadi Assaf, an attorney with the Northwest Justice Project, testified. “If anything, objectively reasonable regulations will lead to fewer lawsuits for damages when cities sweep encampments because the rules would be clear as objectively reasonable restrictions and guidance is developed.”

However, as previously mentioned, individuals couldn’t sue for damages, only for declaratory or injunctive relief. Opponents of HB 1380 say the fear of potential litigation may hinder a municipality’s ability to regulate homelessness due to the implication of resulting settlements. 

If anyone could sue over the objective reasonableness of a related ordinance, the municipality would have to fight it or give in, which would cost money. Several individuals from Spokane, including an elected official, business leaders and residents, testified in opposition. 

Jewels Helping Hands, a Spokane-based provider, also testified, but in support of HB 1380. The nonprofit is currently involved in a lawsuit against Spokane over its ordinances, including one law that nearly 75% of voters approved on the ballot in November 2023. 

Rep. Timm Ormsby, D-Spokane, and Rep. Natasha Hill, D-Spokane, sponsored HB 1380. As chair of the committee, Ormsby decides which bills get a hearing, including this proposal, despite concerns from some of his constituents considering the 2023 vote. 

Other groups and citizens around the state also voiced concerns about HB 1380, including the mayor of Mercer Island, Aberdeen’s city administrator and Bellevue’s city attorney. While 1,082 people signed in as opposition, the 1,304 who did so in support prevailed as the majority despite giving less verbal testimony. 

The Association of Washington Cities, representing nearly all of Washington’s roughly 281 towns and cities, testified in opposition, as did the Washington Association of Counties, representing all 38 across the state. However, opinions may vary from one jurisdiction to another.

“An overwhelming 74.7% of Spokane voters approved Proposition 1, decisively prohibiting encampments within 1,000 feet of parks, schools and child care facilities,” Spokane Councilmember Jonathan Bingle testified. “House Bill 1380 is a direct attack on the democratic will of the Spokane citizens, an erosion of local authority and a reckless endangerment of public safety and fiscal responsibility.”