Inside a rancher family's clash with gov't that could have ripple effect right to SCOTUS: ‘Existential threat’
A multi-generational Washington ranch family, the Kings, contest fines and restoration orders from the state Ecology department over alleged wetlands created by stockwater ponds. They argue the ponds are not wetlands, seek a jury trial, and challenge the administrative path that would bypass one. The dispute has escalated toward potential ripple effects nationwide, including a possible Supreme Court review of whether the Seventh Amendment applies to states. The case highlights broader tensions between environmental regulation, ranching livelihoods, and legal rights, with implications for other ranchers if agencies can impose costly penalties without jury trials. The outcome could reshape how such regulatory actions are adjudicated and enforced moving forward.
Dive Deeper:
Wade and Teresa King, owners of King Ranch in Grant and Douglas counties, were fined $267,540 in 2023 for allegedly damaging 6.37 acres of wetlands by digging cattle ponds intended to water livestock, and were ordered to restore multiple sites.
The Kings argue the areas are longstanding stockwater ponds, not wetlands, and initially pursued a jury trial by challenging the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), an administrative panel that does not offer jury trials; a state judge later dismissed a related lawsuit before administrative proceedings concluded.
A Washington Court of Appeals commissioner paused the PCHB process to determine whether the Kings are entitled to a jury trial, with the Kings criticizing the executive-branch tilt of agency decisions and noting Governor Bob Ferguson’s appointment influence over the board.
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Oliver Dunford says the Kings are prepared to petition the U.S. Supreme Court if Washington courts don’t rule in their favor, arguing a ruling could extend to states nationwide and curb agencies from imposing fines that require costly defense solely to obtain a jury trial.
The department maintains there is no evidence the areas were ponds and says Ecology used satellite and historical imagery to determine wetland damage; it has ordered restoration of 34 sites, predominantly on state land, and argues the 3.7+ million cost to comply underscores the regulatory burden on ranchers.
Teresa King contends the wetlands designation expands regulatory authority and could jeopardize exemptions that other ranchers rely on for livestock water, warning the fight could affect generations of the King family and other ranchers’ rights if scaled nationwide.
If the Kings win, advocates anticipate a broad impact by reinforcing jury-trial rights against regulatory agencies, potentially altering how environmental penalties are pursued and challenged at both state and federal levels.