Litigation Work
Visit our website to access updates, case filings and related media for each of our lawsuits.
Guardian Arms v Washington (SHB1240)
On April 25, 2023, Governor Jay Inslee signed SHB1240, banning "assault weapons" under Chapter 9.41 RCW, Firearms and Dangerous Weapons ("Washington Uniform Firearms Act"). SHB1240 unconstitutionally and categorically bans the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale or offer for sale of any "assault weapon." Any violation of the provisions of SHB 1240 is categorized as a gross misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the country jail for up to 364 days, or a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both imprisonment and fine.
Silent Majority Foundation immediately filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction in Grant County Superior Court as SHB1240 immediately and directly infringes on our right to bear arms protected under Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.
This case is currently in Discovery.
Thank you for supporting this case! To read our latest update and access case documents visit: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/GuardianArms
Washington State v. Gator Custom Guns
When Gator's Custom Guns received a Civil Investigative Demand, they contacted Silent Majority Foundation. When WE fought back to challenge the CID, the State Attorney General filed suit! Help us challenge the CID and Defend Gators from the State's tyranny! Donate to the legal fund for State of WA V. Gator's Custom Guns and join the struggle to regain our 2nd Amendment rights!
Update: Gator's won a Motion for Summary Judgment and an Injunction; the injunction was stayed by the Supreme Court Commissioner. The State has appealed the decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Thank you for supporting our work! To read case documents and donate to this case visit our website at: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/GatorsGuns
Brumback v. Ferguson
On July 14, 2022, Silent Majority Foundation filed a lawsuit in Yakima County Superior Court to challenge Washington State Senate Bill 5078. ESSB 5078 prohibits the manufacturing, importation, distribution, sale and/or offering for sale of "high-capacity" magazines under the guise of "likely" saving lives while ignoring the blatant infringement on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens under the Washington State and U.S. Constitutions. The Washington State Attorney General immediately requested to have this case moved to Federal Court which was accepted.
SMF represents two plaintiff's: an individual seeking to purchase a "high-capacity" magazine, as well as a local FFL, Gimme Guns, to ensure that the lawsuit covers each side of a purchase transaction. We immediately filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief stating that Washington state's ban on LCM's is a violation of the state constitution, as well as the U.S. Constitution. Alongside the Complaint, SMF filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order restraining the Defendant's from impairing and/or infringing the right to bear arms of our Plaintiff's and the citizens of Washington state.
Oral arguments were heard in November 2022 but no decision has been issued.
We're excited about this case for several reasons:
1. It shows our continued commitment to fighting for our constitutional rights;
2. We brought the case with a plaintiff who was barred from buying a magazine and a vendor who was prohibited from selling a magazine to ensure we hit both sides of the equation; and
3. The recent United States Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, has changed the analysis of 2nd Amendment infringement/impairments to a single question that requires the government to "affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
Update: This case is on hold pending the Duncan v. Bonta outcome.
Thank you for supporting our work! To read case documents and donate to this case visit our website at: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/BrumbackVFerguson
John Does 1,3,5 v. Inslee (HB1705)
On March 16, 2023, Silent Majority Foundation filed an Amended Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief requesting the Court enter an injunction against the implementation of the challenged sections of RCW 9.41.190 as detailed in our Amended Complaint. This filing also requests the Court to grant Declaratory Judgment declaring the challenged laws invalid as they impair individuals right to bear arms and violate the right to due process.
HB1705 unconstitutionally and categorically bans, under severe monetary and confinement penalties, the manufacture, sale, transfer, purchase, transport, receipt of, and even possession of untraceable firearms. These bans are a broad attack on Washington’s Constitution and it’s people.
Thank you for supporting our work! To read case documents and donate to this case visit our website at: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/GhostGunsBan
Zimmerman v. PeaceHealth
On 12/12/2022, Silent Majority Foundation filed a class action lawsuit against PeaceHealth on behalf of PeaceHealth employees who were placed on indefinite administrative leave without pay for failure to receive the COVID-19 shot. These employees sought religious exemptions and received them, but PeaceHealth refused to accommodate them. We are seeking injunctive relief (to end the indefinite leave without pay and regain employment) and damages.
UPDATE:
On 11/9/2023, we received an Order from the court DENYING PeaceHealths efforts to dismiss the lawsuit. This latest order from US District Court Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright denied in part and granted in part PeaceHealth’s Motion to Dismiss. This is a huge step in the right direction for this case given the government overreach issues facing Washington state.
Our most recent filing included 3 new claims. PeaceHealth now has 30 days to respond to these new claims as we move forward on our original claims.
Update: We have added 4 new plaintiff’s to this case in April 2024.
Thank you for supporting our work! To read case documents and donate to this case visit our website at: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/Peacehealth
Dr. Renata Moon v Washington State University
On September 24, 2024, Silent Majority filed a complaint on behalf of Dr. Renata Moon against Washington State University (“WSU”) for violation of her first amendment rights. Dr. Moon has been an Associate Professor for Elson S Floyd College of Medicine at WSU since its inaugural class in 2017. However, after testifying at Senator Ron Johnson’s roundtable event regarding the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for children on December 7, 2022, the medical school decided to investigate her for spreading “misinformation” and “disinformation.” In addition, they reported these activities to the Washington Medical Commission which also opened an investigation against her. Ultimately, the school chose not to renew her contract. Both of these investigations have made it more difficult for Dr. Moon to find work, even after practicing for 25 years as a pediatrician with a completely clean record. It also caused her to lose her pension, which would have vested in another year, and to lose her health insurance.
WSU has a history of limiting Dr. Moon’s free speech. In 2021, the school removed her from her normal teaching schedule because a few students took umbrage with her paraphrasing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech during a discussion of racism. These same few students also objected to her asking important questions about the COVID vaccines as they were being granted Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) status. During this episode, only the few students who complained were interviewed. The students who rated Dr. Moon highly were not interviewed despite the fact that they were direct witnesses to the events. This too was a violation of Dr. Moon’s free speech, a violation that escalated in 2023 with the refusal to renew her contract.
This case is about more than Dr. Moon’s right to speak to students and her government. It is about the right of each of us to speak, to peaceably assemble, and to petition our government when we see issues that concern us. The desire to censor all of us for anything deemed “misinformation” is rampant at the moment. Without the ability to have robust conversations and debates, especially as it pertains to our health, we are at the mercy of others who cannot know our individualized needs and do not have our best interest at heart. Our government is instituted not to be our parent or guardian, but to protect our rights. The freedoms of speech, peaceable assembly and petition are fundamental to our Constitutional Republic and cannot be surrendered to experts who have never met us and cannot provide our individual needs. Such surrender is to submit unreservedly to tyranny.
Dr. Moon is fighting for the American people. Please support the cause by donating to her efforts.
Read more, see case documents and donate to support Dr. Moon’s battle for free speech: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/renatamoon
Wilkinson v. WMC (Washington Medical Commission)
We are appealing the findings and disciplinary action taken against Dr. Wilkinson for his treatment of COVID-19 with Ivermectin and for his discussion of the treatment on his blogs and in a public meeting. The WA Medical Commission deemed these activities “act[s] of moral turpitude” and claimed that Dr. Wilkinson took an “extremely unbalanced look at COVID-19, downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19.” The WMC’s determination that it can regulate Dr. Wilkinson’s speech and its decision to regulate Dr. Wilkinson’s treatment of patients presents the necessity of our appeal. The WMC’s violations of Dr. Wilkinson’s rights can be summarized as follows:
The WMC based two of its unprofessional conduct findings are based solely on his speech, violating his Free Speech rights. Additionally, the WMC is punishing Dr. Wilkinson for not telling clients that he was prescribing ivermectin “off-label,” a requirement that applies to no other drug--such unjustified compelled speech is unconstitutional.
Dr. Wilkinson is being forced to attend the equivalent of a reeducation camp and required to undergo physical, mental, and psychological evaluations while there simply because he said and did things the Washington Medical Commission disagrees with, violating his statutory and due process rights.
The WMC disregarded patients testimony that they were fully informed about ivermectin and other recommendations made by Dr. Wilkinson.
In summary, we’re pressing on in this matter as we must represent Dr. Wilkinson in an effort to preserve his rights to free speech and his ability to treat patients with his knowledge and understanding. It is imperative that these rights be protected so we all can enjoy medical freedom.
To access case documents and updates visit: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/drwilkinson
Dr. Michael Turner v Washington Medical Commission
Dr. Michael Turner is involved in two cases with Silent Majority Foundation. He is the lead plaintiff challenging the Washington Medical Commissions COVID-19 Misinformation Position Statement in an attempt to protect the free speech of Doctors across Washington and holding the Washington Medical Commission accountable for using a Position Statement that is not a rule to punish doctors. After we sued the Washington Medical Commission we asked the judge to enjoin the enforcement of the unlawful position statement for two reasons:
It was passed without allowing doctors or the public to comment on it (among other omissions) -- a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
It violated Doctors' free speech by punishing them for talking about COVID -19 treatments the Commission disapproved of. The judge refused to rule on our preliminary injunction. Instead he chose to stay it until all of the doctors had their hearings in front of the Washington Medical Commission.
We asked for reconsideration, but the judge refused to reconsider his ruling. Therefore we are considering filing a motion for discretionary review with the appeals court. Recently, Dr. Eggleston has been granted discretionary review on similar grounds we are claiming in this case.
Dr. Turner is also facing a challenge against his license. He helped many patients during the pandemic by prescribing Ivermectin, among other early nutraceuticals to attempt to help reduce their chances of landing in the hospital. For this, he is being brought in front of the Washington Medical Commission on charges that he has committed unprofessional conduct. Silent Majority Foundation is defending him in this challenge.
To read more about this case and access case documents visit: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/turnervwmc
Linebarger Case (Right to Petition)
The people have a right of access to courts; indeed, it is ‘the bedrock foundation upon which rest all of the people’s rights and obligations.’”
Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, P.S., 166 Wn.2d 974, 979, 216 P.3d 374 (2009) (quoting John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780, 819 P.2d 370 (1991)).
Silent Majority Foundation filed an appeal on behalf of Rob Linebarger, an individual who sought to recall three Central Valley School District (Liberty Lake, WA) school board members who instituted harsh COVID-19 protocols. Although Mr. Linebarger had hired two attorneys (not SMF attorneys) to assist with the recall, the recall was unsuccessful, and the Central Valley School District sought sanctions (monetary compensation) from Mr. Linebarger and his attorneys. $22,500 of the $30,000 in sanctions was assessed against Mr. Linebarger. Mr. Linebarger, with the assistance of SMF filed this appeal, challenging the award of the sanctions as he was exercising his constitutional right to Recall Washington Public Officers. WA Constitution, Article I, Sec. 33 and 34. (verbiage below)
SECTION 33 RECALL OF ELECTIVE OFFICERS. Every elective public officer of the state of Washington expect [except] judges of courts of record is subject to recall and discharge by the legal voters of the state, or of the political subdivision of the state, from which he was elected whenever a petition demanding his recall, reciting that such officer has committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office, stating the matters complained of, signed by the percentages of the qualified electors thereof, hereinafter provided, the percentage required to be computed from the total number of votes cast for all candidates for his said office to which he was elected at the preceding election, is filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination, or certificate for nomination, to such office must be filed under the laws of this state, and the same officer shall call a special election as provided by the general election laws of this state, and the result determined as therein provided. [AMENDMENT 8, 1911 p 504 Section 1. Approved November, 1912.]
SECTION 34 SAME. The legislature shall pass the necessary laws to carry out the provisions of section thirty-three (33) of this article, and to facilitate its operation and effect without delay: Provided, That the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people. The percentages required shall be, state officers, other than judges, senators and representatives, city officers of cities of the first class, school district boards in cities of the first class; county officers of counties of the first, second and third classes, twenty-five per cent. Officers of all other political subdivisions, cities, towns, townships, precincts and school districts not herein mentioned, and state senators and representatives, thirty-five per cent. [AMENDMENT 8, 1911 p 504 Section 1. Approved November, 1912.]
As the right to speak freely and to petition the government for redress are two of the most important rights protected by the Constitution, SMF sees tremendous value in fighting to ensure this type of censorship and government abuse does not continue.
Stay tuned as we await the Board Members' brief. To access case documents visit: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.com/right-to-petition
Kittleson v. PeaceHealth (ADA Complaint)
We have filed a new complaint against PeaceHealth, Kittleson v. PeaceHealth, on behalf of those who were not accommodated despite having a disability that would not allow them to receive any of the vaccines. Each of the three plaintiffs have had reactions to previous vaccines making them more likely to have a reaction to future vaccines. Despite this fact, PeaceHealth decided that it knew better than our plaintiffs’ doctors and insisted that they could and should take the vaccine. As a result, PeaceHealth refused to accommodate any of them.
The facts in this case are presented below:
PeaceHealth adopted its COVID vaccination mandate on the idea that the vaccine would stop transmission of the virus. There was ample information out from trusted sources that the vaccine would not stop the virus. Why was this not considered?
Plaintiff’s Disabilities. Evidence of medical conditions and adverse reactions from past vaccinations was presented to PeaceHealth. No accommodation was provided despite these disabilities.
The Process Used by PeaceHealth Upon Enacting the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate. PeaceHealth has long had a requirement for staff to receive the flu vaccination, allowing a simple religious or medical opt-out which was accommodated. That process changed significantly with the COVID-19 Vaccination Policy implementation.
The Effect of PeaceHealth’s Actions on Plaintiff’s. Each of the Plaintiffs have experienced extreme hardship as a result of PeaceHealth’s actions. Financially they have had to sacrifice in ways most of us have never experienced. They have also paid extreme emotional consequences as well, including panic attacks an suicidal thoughts. The fact that PeaceHealth believed it acceptable to require that they risk their lives or lose their jobs shows the unreasonable business practices PeaceHealth is willing to employ.
PeaceHealth Could have Accommodated Unvaccinated Employees without Significant Difficulty or Expense. In the Zimmerman v. PeaceHealth Title VII case, the judge said that we have stated a colorable claim that PeaceHealth could have accommodated and have yet to prove that accommodating Plaintiffs was an undue burden. We expect that the same will happen in this case.
PeaceHealth will have to answer the complaint within 90 days. We are excited for our Plaintiff’s as this case moves forward. Karen Osborne has, as usual, done a fantastic job with this brief. Thank you for your hard work, Karen!
To access case documents and updates visit: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/peacehealth
Parental Rights - Protecting Initiative 2081
Initiative Measure 2081 established a parents’ bill of rights and added a new section to chapter 28A.605 RCW. Included in the Initiative are prior notification requirements regarding medical services offered by/through the school, law enforcement intervention, and when a child is removed from the public school campus. It is imperative that parents have access to what their kids are being taught and shown in the classroom, so the measure provided a transparency requirement allowing parents to review textbooks, curriculum and an annual school calendar, as well as providing the opportunity for parents to opt their children out of activities and/or engagements that the parent so chooses. Initiative Measure 2081 protects the rights of parents to be the primary stakeholder in their children’s upbringing, not the State.
BACKGROUND
This spring the People qualified Initiative 2081, The Parents’ Bill of Rights, to the legislature, and it was passed on March 4, 2024. The Initiative acknowledges that parents are the primary stakeholders in their children’s upbringing, that parental involvement is the single most significant factor in increasing student achievement, and access to student information encourages parental involvement and strengthens student safety.
I-2081 requires parental notification for educational and health services provided through schools including access to inspect textbooks, curriculum, and supplemental materials used in their child’s classroom, academic and disciplinary records, medical or health records, mental health counseling, vocational counseling, and records of attendance.
Legal Counsel for Youth and Children (LCYC) challenged Initiative 2081 by filing a Complaint and a Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction in King County seeking to stop the implementation of I-2081. The TRO was heard and DENIED on June 4, 2024.
The hearing for the Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for June 21, 2024. On that date, or before, the Court will determine whether Let’s Go Washington (LGW), Informed Choice WA (ICWA), and Representative Jim Walsh can intervene to defend I-2081 alongside the State of Washington. Since Washington courts routinely allow intervention by a law’s supporters in legal challenges to its validity, SMF believes the Court should grant the motion to intervene and allow Intervenors to defend the Initiative they worked so hard to promote and assist to passage.
Chris Reykdal, Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction, has already instructed schools to “ignore” this codified law “until additional clarity is provided on the areas where the initiative conflicts with existing state and federal law.” In directing school districts to ignore the law, Mr. Reykdal ignores that the People and the Legislature have already spoken on this matter so there is no confusion as to what IS, in fact, Washington state law.
The purpose of the intervention is to ensure that I-2081 is adequately defended, thus upholding the voice of the people of Washington state. While the Attorney General’s Office is presently defending the action, SMF will stand with Let’s Go Washington and other individuals and organizations who spent significant resources on the passage of the Parents bill of rights.
Thank you for your support! To see our latest update and access case documents, visit: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/parentalrights
Sean Feucht v City of Spokane, Washington
On August 20, 2023, Sean Feucht came to Spokane for his Let Us Worship event, a time of worshipping Jesus, seeking repentance and redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and praying for our nation. Sean was joined by thousands from the area, including Spokane City Mayor, Nadine Woodward, who received prayer and encouragement. How did the City Council respond to this constitutionally-protected and positive event? The response of Spokane, Washington to Mr. Feucht’s presence, prayer, worship and preaching of the gospel was for its City Council to condemn his beliefs, worship, speech, and prayer, which it did through the preparation, drafting, and adoption of Resolution No. 2023-0081, adopted September 25, 2023.
What is Resolution No. 2023-0081? This resolution was introduced by Spokane City Council members Zack Zappone and Betsy Wilkerson to “formally denounce” the Spokane City Mayor, Nadine Woodward, for associating with Sean Feucht at his August 20, 2023 worship event. This obvious overreach was, in fact, pointed out by former Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney, Don Brockett, prior to the adoption of the resolution.
“I hope you will seriously re-consider taking any action against Mayor Woodward because of what may be the unintended results. I’m sure you remember the saying that ‘what goes around comes around’ and what may result if you continue with your plan is that people may wrongly judge every meeting or encounter you may have with a member of the public and question if it was legitimate or appropriate.”
Not only that but the Attorney for Spokane, Washington told the Spokane City Council that this resolution was not the correct mechanism to deal with any problems it had with the mayor. Despite this sound advice, Zack Zappone, Lori Kinnear, Betsy Wilkerson and Karen Stratton all voted to pass the resolution that “denounces her [Mayor Woodward] preplanned attendance that associates her with known anti-LGBTQ extremist, Sean Feucht, and hateful rhetoric.”
To read more about this case, see our updates and access case documents visit: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/FeuchtvSpokane
Westover v DNR
On October 14, 2024, Silent Majority Foundation filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and executive level DNR employees, on behalf of award-winning journalist, Alison Westover (formerly Alison Morrow) for Alison’s wrongful termination stemming from Alison posting an interview with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, MD on her personal YouTube channel, which she made on her own time with her own resources.
Prior to joining DNR, Alison served as Environmental Reporter for KING 5 in Seattle, where she worked from 2013 until 2019, winning two Emmy awards during her tenure. While at KING 5, Alison created a YouTube channel to share her skills as an independent journalist. DNR subsequently hired Alison as a communications specialist with full knowledge of her YouTube channel and independent journalistic work. DNR encouraged this independent work until Alison covered Dr. Kheriaty and his opinions on COVID-19. After Dr. Kheriaty’s appearance on Alison’s YouTube channel, DNR leadership told Alison if she continued with the interviews, they would fire her. Alison explained her 1st Amendment rights to continue the work, which was done in her personal time and with her personal equipment and refused to comply.
Alison ultimately decided that her first amendment rights to associate freely, right to freedom of the press, and her right to speak freely on matters of public concern was too important, and she refused DNR’s demand to use approved narratives. DNR terminated Alison’s employment, and she sought help from the Silent Majority Foundation.
Hanson v Ferguson
On 12/03/2024, Silent Majority Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of ten former employees of the Washington State Office of the Attorney General, challenging the AGO's adoption and implementation of AGO Policy I.58, Vaccination, which required AGO employees and volunteers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment. While the Attorney General is to uphold the liberty and justice all citizens, Bob Ferguson discriminately applied the mandate to each of our clients, in violation of their Constitutional and statutory rights. Our causes of action are as follows:
Deprivation of Religious Freedom, Violation of U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1, Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violations of U.S. Const. Amend. V., Amend. XIV, Wash. Const. Art. I, § 3, Deprivation 3 of Life, Liberty, or Property, Without Due Process; 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Failure to Accommodate – Washington Law Against Discrimination
Disparate Treatment – Washington Law Against Discrimination
Disparate Impact – Washington Law Against Discrimination
Violation of Right to be Free from Arbitrary and Capricious Action
Wrongful Termination Against Public Policy -- Religious Discrimination
Wrongful Termination – Retaliation in Violation of Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.210
The Vaccine Mandate and Policy I.58 were ultra vires acts as they were conducted outside the scope of the Attorney General or delegees’ authority
While the AGO Policy I.58, "Vaccination," provided the option to request accommodations or modifications for employees with disabilities, health conditions, or religious beliefs preventing them from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, none of our clients received accommodations from the Policy. Further, these employees were denied access to an interactive process to achieve accommodations, but instead were wrongfully terminated, forced to resign or to immediately retire.
In mandating that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition to maintain employment, the Attorney General, Defendant Ferguson, exceeded or acted entirely outside of his statutory authority.
Silent Majority Foundation is proud to stand with these bold Washingtonians against government overreach at the hands of the Office of Attorney General.
Silent Majority Foundation (SMF) is a 501(c)(3) organization centered on protecting America's constitution and theological foundation. As founders of SMF, we support, protect and defend the constitution of our United States through education, advocacy, and litigation efforts. SMF will always focus on God and Country as the core of our mission.