Washington ranchers get their day in court—to fight for their day in court
The King family has worked the same stretch of Central Washington for more than 70 years, running cattle across Grant and Douglas counties on land they’ve ranched since the 1950s.
On May 21, a Grant County Superior Court judge heard oral argument on whether the Kings are entitled to defend that legacy before a jury—or whether Washington State can force them into an administrative proceeding where no jury will ever set foot.
The government’s demand
The Kings’ conflict with state regulators began in February 2023, when the Washington State Department of Ecology accused them of disturbing “regulated wetlands” by digging and maintaining stockwater ponds on their ranch and on leased government land. The Department imposed a $267,540 civil penalty alongside a demand that they “restore” the alleged wetlands. A second restoration order came in January 2025. All told, the compliance cost may exceed $3.7 million.
The Kings dispute the accusations on the merits: They argue their stockwater ponds aren’t regulated wetlands and that the Department has no authority to regulate those sites under Washington law in the first place. But the most fundamental problem they face isn’t the underlying charges themselves, but the forum where they’re required to answer them.
Washington’s enforcement structure gave the Kings two options: pay an outrageous fine or appeal the charges to the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB)—a body of governor-appointed adjudicators that lacks any mechanism for a jury trial. The Board cannot call for a jury trial, and it has no power to send a case to a court that can. The result is a system where a state agency investigates a citizen, brings charges, and then appears before a jury-less agency that decides the outcome, all without setting foot in an independent courtroom.
What the Washington State Constitution says
Washington’s constitution doesn’t mince words: “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.” The Kings argue that guarantee doesn’t evaporate when the government pursues enforcement through an agency rather than in court. When the State seeks to impose civil monetary penalties, it must do so in front of a jury.
The Kings filed suit in Grant County Superior Court in March 2026, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, to fight for their constitutional right to a jury trial.
The case also presses a federal question that courts have yet to fully resolve. The Seventh Amendment protects the right to a jury trial in federal civil proceedings, but that protection has never been formally extended to the states through a process called incorporation. Nearly every other provision of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated. If the Washington courts decide that the Washington State Constitution doesn’t guarantee a jury trial here, the Kings will ask the United States Supreme Court to incorporate the Seventh Amendment and rule that the federal constitution guarantees the Kings their right to a jury trial.
A court denied the Kings’ bid to pause the administrative proceedings while the constitutional question was litigated, but the underlying argument survived. Last week’s hearing was the opportunity to get a definitive ruling.
At oral argument
PLF attorney Allison Daniel pressed that the Kings don’t have to wait until the Pollution Control Hearings Board proceeding runs its course before raising their constitutional claim. Washington law doesn’t require parties to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court to challenge a constitutional violation—and the Kings are being injured right now by being subjected to the PCHB proceeding.
The State tried to argue that because the Kings, to trigger their right to a hearing, “appealed” the State’s claims to the PCHB, the claims at issue are theirs—not the Department of Ecology’s—and therefore no jury is required. Daniel countered, explaining that the Department initiated this fight with its administrative orders, and the Kings have the right to make the government prove its case before a jury.
“Wade and Teresa King didn’t ask for this fight,” Daniel said after oral argument. “The State came after them with a $267,540 penalty and millions more in ‘restoration’ demands. If agencies can sidestep the jury-trial guarantee simply by channeling enforcement through an administrative body, that right means nothing for anyone facing government penalties in Washington.”
The judge acknowledged the importance of moving quickly and committed to issuing a ruling promptly so the case can advance to the appellate courts.
