Fact check: Have there been any court cases in Washington state that have addressed potential constitutional violations of RCW 19.28?

1. Why reporters focused on an executive order, not court fights

The bulk of the supplied reporting centers on Governor Bob Ferguson’s executive order requiring Project Labor Agreements for large state-funded projects and the reaction from local builders, framing the story as a policy change with economic and competitive impacts. These articles repeatedly discuss the order’s threshold—projects over $35 million—and concerns from small contractors about reduced competition and potential market effects ^{[1] [2]}. None of these accounts mention a legal challenge to RCW 19.28, indicating that at least within this news cycle the conversation remained political and economic rather than judicial.

2. What the articles do say about legal context — and what they omit

Several pieces acknowledge that stakeholders feel the executive order could disadvantage certain contractors and invite debate, but they stop short of reporting any filed lawsuits or court opinions tied to RCW 19.28 or to the order itself ^{[1] [2]}. The omission is notable because reporting on policy changes that provoke industry pushback often mentions litigation when it exists; the absence of such reporting in these sources suggests either no cases had been filed by the publication dates or that any litigation had not become public record by then ^[2]. The sources therefore leave a legal gap not addressed by the journalism provided.

3. A single-source outlier on unrelated constitutional litigation

One supplied article discusses a Washington Supreme Court case concerning a ban on large-capacity magazines, which represents constitutional litigation the court was willing to adjudicate, though it is unrelated to RCW 19.28 ^[4]. Including that piece offers perspective on the court’s activity and willingness to hear constitutional challenges, but it should not be read as evidence that the court has considered RCW 19.28. The juxtaposition of the unrelated gun-law case and the executive-order coverage could create the impression of broader constitutional litigation activity in the state, but the supplied materials do not connect the two.

4. How stakeholders framed the issue and possible agendas

Sources documenting builders’ reactions frame the executive order primarily as a competition and business-cost story, emphasizing impacts on small contractors and local economies ^{[1] [2]}. This framing aligns with the interests of trade groups and independent contractors who may view Project Labor Agreements as exclusionary. At the same time, the executive order’s proponents—implicitly represented through the state action—present it as a policy choice to structure public construction. The supplied reporting shows competing agendas (economic competition vs. procurement policy) but does not show those agendas translating into court filings over constitutional claims ^{[1] [2]}.

5. What the evidence provided cannot confirm

Given the limits of the supplied material, one cannot confirm that any Washington court has addressed potential constitutional violations of RCW 19.28. The available coverage is silent on lawsuits, injunctions, or appellate rulings tied to the statute or the related executive order, and the only constitutional litigation mentioned concerns an entirely different statute and subject matter ^{[3] [4]}. The absence of mention across multiple articles and reporting dates (September–December 2025) is relevant: across this period, the coverage that exists did not surface judicial challenges specific to RCW 19.28.

6. Recommended next steps based on the gaps in reporting

To move from absence of evidence to confirmation, pursue targeted legal-source checks: search Washington courts’ dockets and recent appellate decisions for cases naming RCW 19.28 or for litigation challenging Project Labor Agreements tied to state procurement. Also review press releases from plaintiffs’ attorneys, trade associations, and the Attorney General’s office for notices of suit or defense positions. The supplied news pieces are useful for policymaking context but are insufficient as legal evidence of constitutional litigation concerning RCW 19.28 ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Bottom line for the question you asked

Based strictly on the provided sources, there is no documented instance in these materials of Washington state courts adjudicating claims that RCW 19.28 violates constitutional protections. The supplied reporting covers the policy change and an unrelated constitutional case, leaving the question of any RCW 19.28 litigation unresolved by these sources and pointing to the need for targeted legal research to reach a definitive answer ^{[1] [4] [2]}.