State of Washington ex rel. Haskell v. Spokane County District Court

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that a climate activist should be permitted to present a necessity defense to charges of criminal trespass and unlawful obstruction of a train in connection with a 2016 protest on railroad tracks used by trains carrying coal and oil products. The Supreme Court reversed an intermediate appellate court’s decision affirming a superior court determination that the defendant could not present a necessity defense. The intermediate appellate court held that the defendant was not entitled to present the defense because he had “reasonable legal alternatives” to trespass and obstruction even if those alternatives were not effective. The Supreme Court called the appellate court’s conclusion that there are always reasonable legal alternatives to disobeying constitutional laws “untenable,” and held that “reasonable legal alternatives” must be effective. Whether a legal alternative was “truly reasonable” would be a fact-dependent determination, and “[i]f the defendant offers evidence that they have actually tried the alternative, had no time to try it, or have a history of futile attempts with the alternative, they have created a question of fact for the jury regarding whether there are reasonable legal alternatives.” In this case, the defendant had presented a question of fact as to whether reasonable legal alternatives existed with evidence of his efforts over the years to “call[] attention to the harms of climate change through lawful methods.” The Supreme Court also noted the testimony of the defendant’s expert on nonviolent resistance “that peaceful civil disobedience is essential to combating climate change.” In the interests of judicial economy, the Supreme Court also held that the defendant satisfied the other three elements of the necessity defense: (1) he presented sufficient evidence to reach a jury on the question of whether he believed his actions were necessary to avoid or minimize harms; (2) he did not bring about the threatened harms; and (3) he presented sufficient facts to support a conclusion that the harms he sought to avoid were greater than the harm caused by violation of the law, including evidence that he planned the protest for a time when trains were not scheduled to approach and that he notified the railway company.