The Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously rejected an appeal from the city of Seattle, effectively ending a high-profile legal battle over public records transparency. The decision upholds a prior ruling from the Division One Court of Appeals, which found that the city violated the state’s Public Records Act in its handling of a request filed by podcaster Brandi Kruse.
The dispute centers on a 2023 public records request concerning a controversial city council vote. Kruse, the host of the unDivided podcast, sought access to emails, text messages, and voicemails related to a June 2023 vote by then-Councilmember Andrew Lewis. Lewis had cast a surprise “no” vote on an ordinance designed to give police greater authority to address open drug use in downtown Seattle, a move that diverged from widespread expectations and ultimately defeated the measure.
Records Request Delays and Legal Challenges
Following the June vote, Kruse filed a request for communications from the councilmember surrounding the decision. While she anticipated a prompt response, the city released the first batch of documents only after the August primary election. The city subsequently informed Kruse that the remaining records would not be available until November 11—a date occurring after the general election, during which Lewis was seeking reelection.
Kruse engaged the Citizen Action Defense Fund (CADF) to pursue the matter. During the discovery phase of the ensuing lawsuit, Executive Director Jackson Maynard uncovered that the city’s public records officer had taken leave and had not been replaced, and that the city had failed to post a job opening to fill the vacancy as required by law.
A King County judge initially ruled in favor of the city in the spring of 2025, but that decision was overturned by the Division One Court of Appeals. The city’s subsequent appeal to the State Supreme Court was rejected on Monday in a unanimous decision.
The city of Seattle on Monday agreed to pay The Seattle Times nearly $160,000 to settle a lawsuit that accused the Seattle Police Department of delaying the release of public records through a policy that grouped multiple requests from the same person.https://t.co/S8ImkvBgdZ
Arguments Over Accountability and Legal Fees
Maynard noted that the litigation was intended to ensure that media and the public receive information quickly enough to hold officials accountable for their actions.
“This case was always about defending the right of reporters like our client, Brandi Kruse, and other members of the public to obtain information in a timely way to hold the government accountable,” Maynard said following the court’s decision. He criticized the city for continuing to litigate the matter, noting that the city had previously rejected multiple settlement offers that would have involved only minimal penalties.
Kruse expressed frustration regarding the city’s persistence in the case, suggesting that the effort to delay the release of records may have been driven by political motivations rather than administrative necessity. “It was kind of wild that the city of Seattle would continue to try to press the issue on this case and go all the way to the State Supreme Court after we had a unanimous ruling from the Court of Appeals,” Kruse said. She added that the city’s decision to exhaust all appeals would ultimately result in significantly higher costs for taxpayers.
Financial Implications for the City
While the city of Seattle has not disclosed the total amount spent on legal fees throughout the multi-year conflict, Maynard characterized the expenditure as an unnecessary drain on public funds. The focus of the case now shifts back to the trial court level.
“We look forward to returning to the trial court to get a final judgment as to our reasonable fees and costs and the mandatory penalty available to our client under the public records act,” Maynard stated. The legal team expects the court to determine the specific penalties and costs the city must cover for its violations of the Public Records Act.
Next Steps in the Records Dispute
With the State Supreme Court’s denial of the appeal, the litigation now moves to the final stages of determining the financial penalties and reimbursement for legal fees. This report is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal or professional advice.
