Bradley Boardman v. Jay Inslee

Summary

Washington's Initiative 1501 exempts personal information of in-home care providers from public disclosure under the state Public Records Act, but permits disclosure to the providers' certified exclusive bargaining representatives. The Ninth Circuit held that this selective disclosure does not constitute viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment because the distinction is based on the legal status of exclusive bargaining representative, not on the viewpoint of the requester. The court also rejected claims that the law impaired associational freedom or violated equal protection, finding rational-basis review satisfied and no standing to assert third-party rights. The dissent argued that the law's structure and legislative history demonstrated impermissible viewpoint discrimination favoring unions.

Holdings

1. A state does not engage in viewpoint discrimination by disclosing the personal information of public or quasi-public employees to the employees' exclusive collective bargaining representative, while denying equal access to the public. Initiative 1501 distinguishes based on legal status, not viewpoint.
2. Initiative 1501 does not implicate the individual appellants' associational freedom because the exclusive representation relationship does not violate the First Amendment under Knight and Mentele.
3. Initiative 1501 satisfies rational-basis review because it furthers the legitimate state interests of protecting vulnerable individuals from identity theft and supporting the special responsibilities of exclusive bargaining representatives.
4. Appellants lack standing to assert the rights of third parties because they are not asserting their own legal rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Part III of Initiative 1501 violates the First Amendment by discriminating among viewpoints and impairing freedom of association.
2. Whether Initiative 1501 violates the Equal Protection Clause by burdening fundamental rights or being motivated by animus.
3. Whether appellants have standing to assert the First Amendment rights of other in-home care providers.

Disposition

affirmed