Legal Action to Date and Upcoming
- August 3, 2016
Plaintiffs File Complaint
- August 23, 2016
Parents and Schools File Motion to Intervene and Motion to Dismiss
Twelve families, representing each of Washington’s eight existing charter public schools, as well as the community of Yakima, which has been organizing to open a charter public school; the Washington State Charter Schools Association; and several individual existing and planned schools come together to file a collective motion to intervene in El Centro de la Raza v. Washington and a motion to dismiss all of the organizational plaintiffs named in the lawsuit.
- August 24, 2016
State Files Motion to Dismiss
State of Washington files its own motion to dismiss certain arguments by Plaintiffs because those arguments were too speculative to be properly heard by the court.
- August 29, 2016
Plaintiffs File Opposition to Parents’ and Schools’ Motion to Intervene
- August 29, 2016
State Files Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
- August 30, 2016
Parents and Schools File Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene
- August 31, 2016
King County Superior Court Judge John H. Chun Grants Parents’ and Schools’ Motion to Intervene
In granting schools’ and parents’ motion to intervene, the court recognizes that there are no greater stakeholders in the constitutionality of the Washington Charter Schools Act than the families whose lives and futures have been positively impacted by the increase in high-quality educational opportunities provided by the state’s charter public schools. The decision marks another major victory for school choice and opportunity advocates in Washington.
- October 24, 2016
Plaintiffs’ File Opposition to Motions to Dismiss
- October 31, 2016
Intervenors’ and State’s Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss Due
- November 4, 2016
Oral Arguments for Motions to Dismiss Take Place
- November 18, 2016
Charter Schools and Families Win Key Aspects of Motions to Dismiss
King County Superior Court Judge John H. Chun delivers a major blow to the plaintiffs, recognizing both the state’s motion to dismiss two of plaintiffs’ core arguments from consideration and affirming claims from charter families and schools that several organizational plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing. Multiple lobbying organizations, including El Centro de La Raza, League of Women Voters, Aerospace Machinists Union, Washington Federation of State Employees, Teamsters and several others are dismissed from the case due to lack of standing, but my re-apply under an updated complaint.
- December 1, 2016
Plaintiffs File Motion for Summary Judgement
- December 20, 2016
Charter Schools and Families and the State of Washington file Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, are supported by Legislators, Former State Officials and National Education Organizations
Current and former legislators, former state education officials, and national organizations and education leaders, including the Black Alliance for Educational Opportunities (BAEO), the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), filed “friend of the court” briefs alongside cross-motions for summary judgment submitted by intervening Washington charter families and schools and the State of Washington.
- January 13, 2017
Plaintiffs File Reply In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment and Opposition to State of Washington’s and Intervenors’ Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
- January 20, 2017
Defendant State of Washington Files Reply in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
- January 27, 2017
Summary Judgment Hearing
Charter public school parents and students packed the courtroom for the final trial court hearing in El Centro v. Washington. A decision is expected in February, 2017, though the case is likely to be appealed regardless of the outcome.
- February 17, 2017
Judge Chun Upholds Constitutionality of Washington’s Charter School Act, Grants Summary Judgment for Charter Schools, Families, and the State of Washington
In a decisive order, Judge Chun upheld the constitutionality of the Charter School Act by denying all of Plaintiff’s arguments and granting summary judgment for intervening charter public schools and families.