Washington Court Rejected Seattle Records Appeal
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the city in a dispute over public records requests from 2023.
Updated on Oct. 13, 2026 in Civic Engagement
Live Poll
Should local governments face mandatory financial penalties for failing to fulfill public record requests on time?
The Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the city of Seattle's appeal in a lawsuit concerning public record disclosure obligations. The case stems from a 2023 request for communications regarding a high-profile city council vote.
Why it matters
The ruling underscores the requirements of the Public Records Act and addresses the city's failure to maintain staffing for request processing. Failure to provide timely access to government communications has now resulted in a mandated return to trial to assess potential penalties.
This case originated from a 2023 public records request involving a city councilmember's deciding vote on a drug criminalization ordinance. The city is currently committed to providing outstanding records by November 11.
The players
Brandi Kruse
She is the requester who filed the public records petition regarding city council communications.
Washington State Supreme Court
This is the highest judicial body in the state which issued the unanimous ruling against the city of Seattle.
City of Seattle
This is the municipal government entity that was found to be in violation of the Public Records Act.
The details
The lawsuit challenged Seattle's compliance with the Public Records Act after the city failed to replace a records officer who had taken leave and neglected to post the vacancy. While a King County judge initially sided with the city in spring 2025, the Division One Court of Appeals subsequently ruled in favor of requester Brandi Kruse, leading to the final Supreme Court decision.
Timeline
June 2023: A councilmember cast a deciding vote on a drug ordinance.
Spring 2025: A King County judge ruled in favor of the city.
October 12, 2026: The State Supreme Court rejected the city's appeal.
November 11: The city set this deadline for providing the second batch of records.
Political Context
Opponents of the city's litigation strategy argue that Seattle should focus on transparency rather than exhausting appeals in a process clearly governed by the Washington Public Records Act. Critics have emphasized that the city's failure to staff essential public records positions indicates a disregard for established administrative transparency requirements.
This outcome may lead to shifts in how Seattle manages administrative staffing for public disclosure requests to ensure future legal compliance. Residents can expect the city to prioritize the fulfillment of pending information requests to avoid further litigation costs.
The takeaway
Transparency mandates require consistent administrative staffing to ensure that public record requests are handled within legal timelines. Citizens should utilize these established disclosure processes to hold local government agencies accountable for their communications.
What happens next
The parties will return to the trial court to determine the final amount of reasonable fees, costs, and penalties owed.
Further reading
Learn more about local transparency and oversight in the Civic Engagement section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The Center Square.
Live Poll
Should local governments face mandatory financial penalties for failing to fulfill public record requests on time?
