Thank you for joining us for a full slate with Bob Ferguson Moderated by Essex Porter.

Before we begin , thank you to our founding sponsor, the Kerry and Linda Killinger Foundation Hello, hello everyone, and welcome to the Crosscut Festival.

I'm Essex Porter and for 39 years I covered politics, government and just about everything else.

For KIRO 7 News in Seattle, I am recently retired but still curious, so I was very honored when I was asked to lead this conversation with Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Let me tell you a little bit about the attorney general Bob Ferguson is a native of Seattle, a former president of the University of Washington student body.

He's a graduate of the new York University School of Law, a Democrat.

He served nine years on the King County Council.

He's now in his third term as attorney general.

He's filed 99 lawsuits against the Trump administration.

You'll all remember those headlines and his team at the moment has won 50 legal victories , most notably the 2017 lawsuit that put nationwide breaks on the Muslim Travel Ban There are two defeats, so he's one and two in those lawsuits.

He is an internationally rated chess master as well, which probably helps if you are also the father of teenage twins And the obscure political fact will always remember about the attorney general from my coverage of him over the years is that he knocked on 22000 doors to secure a narrow victory in his first run for King County Council, a relentless campaigner.

Attorney General Ferguson, hello and welcome to the Crosscut Festival.

Good morning, Essex.

Hey, great to see you.

Thanks for that reduction.

and I'm not sure anything prepares you for 14 year old twins.

Whether you've got a chess background, or not.

But but it's great to see you and everybody else has joined into that Thank you.

You know, look, we're going to talk at least for half an hour or so I've got questions.

We'll explore a bunch of subjects.

We're also inviting the audience to submit questions as well , and we'll get to a lot of those.

Let me start off with sort of a big philosophical question before we get to the details of a lot of breaking news on the justice front, even this this week.

But, you know, I'm interested in, you know, more of your personal motivations How do you define justice and what inspired you to devote your career to pursuing justice?

Well, thanks for that question.

And by the way, thanks to all the organizers at Crosscut for this wonderful festival , it's great to be part of it again.

You know, it's interesting questions really to sort of how one gets to be the way they are It's always tricky, right?

As you and everybody here can appreciate , there's so many influences in our lives, I think, and it's hard to quantify it.

I guess what I would say for me to start with the second question first is kind of what?

What motivates me or how I came to be in the job that I have or my interest in injustice.

Obviously, family influences are obviously critical for anybody.

I'm from a large family.

My late father and my mother is thankfully still alive.

We're big role models for me.

My mom was a public schoolteacher.

She taught special education in the public schools.

In addition to helping to raise seven kids, six boys.

So, you know, at the dinner table, she talked a lot when we were done talking about the Huskies and the Seahawks.

She talked a lot about what her day was like as a special education teacher and and I remember that always had a big influence on me.

The idea that not everybody starts off with a level playing field and in this role, and my father certainly had a, I guess, led the way, I would say it is a very clear sense of right and wrong is the way I would describe my my father for sure.

And I think he instilled that in his kids.

And so I guess what I say beyond that is I know I had a a year after I finished college, Rice served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps It's like a Vista program or Peace Corps, but it's through the Jesuits in here in the United States where I served and I served in an Inner-City community.

I lived there and I worked there.

And and for a kid who grew up on Queen and Hill, who had a lot of advantages in life, it was an eye opening experience for me to see something equities in our system.

And that gets to your question about justice, right?

I think for me, I realize it's not a level playing field for everybody.

Not everybody is born on queen and Hill with an intact family and with lots of possibilities in their lives.

And I remember when I was doing that Jesuit volunteer work, I remember thinking to myself that I felt I could help people in the job.

I was doing.

But I remember thinking to myself if I ever had a job in my life where I had some greater influence that I would try to use that influence to really make sure we had a more equitable society and to use whatever skills I had or office I held to do what I could to ensure that and and being attorney general Thankfully, my issues we'll talk about is, from my standpoint, the ideal platform to try and create a more just system in our state.

and really across the country as well.

Yeah.

Could you talk a little more about how you define justice?

How do you know when you've achieved what is it?

How do you know when you've achieved what justice is elusive , right?

A6 I mean, it's a complicated question.

I guess in an ideal state, right Justice is a world, a society in which everybody has access to equal opportunities to thrive, to live, a productive life, to live a healthy life.

All the things we want That's justice.

And where no one is above the law, right We are all accountable to the law.

We're all equal under the law And you know, we live in a society that isn't always that way, right?

That the powerful have certain advantages were presidents exceed their authority under the law where we have challenges for access to justice , justice is a noble concept.

I live my life by it.

But look, justice only works if everybody has access to the courts and everybody has access to a legal system that ensures that equality has access to a legal advocate who can help them if they've got someone in the life who's not playing by the rules.

A business , a landlord, a car dealer, a president, whatever it might be.

And so I guess I really view my role as attorney general is trying to be the people's attorney, the law firm for the people to provide better access to justice and ensure justice for everybody in our state.

Yeah, Well, let's get to the news.

The biggest legal news in the days leading up to our discussion was the release of the Supreme Court's draft opinion overturning Roe versus Wade, overturning abortion rights And that raises a lot of questions You know, and I think, you know, for those of us here in Washington, state, we know that abortion rights are codified into law.

But how might this draft opinion if it does become the opinion of the Supreme Court?

How might it threaten abortion rights here in Washington state?

Yeah, Essex Porter actually, that question, I'm sure it's on a lot of people's minds who are watching this conversation.

So I guess first, just to reemphasize a point that was embedded in your question.

That is that because the people of Washington state approved an initiative a number of years ago, they essentially codified abortion rights here in Washington state Even if that draft opinion that I suspect everybody has seen If the court approves that as written, that would not impair or restrict or limit the rights to a legal and safe abortion.

here in Washington state.

In other words, that opinion leaves it to the states.

So you've seen a number of states that have these trigger laws.

If Roe v. Wade is essentially overturned, those states will outlaw abortion.

But there are a number of states like Washington that have it codified, so we'd be protected from that standpoint.

So that's number one.

Number two, you know, it's it's deeply troubling that the court appears to be heading the direction of limiting rights for women in our country that been around for decades.

What we call precedent upon precedent.

Right There's a respect for precedent.

Roe v. Wade has been upheld by the courts over the years, so now the idea that would be taken away for women is deeply alarming.

As attorney general, my job would be to make sure that the statutory assurance that we have in Washington state, if there's legal challenge that we would defend that, of course.

Number two, to work with the governor to make sure that Washington is a place that folks from Idaho or other states can come to get a safe and legal abortion.

That's something the state will be working on, to be sure.

And third, one more thing I'll add to Essex is that we're seeing some states proposing bills that would make it illegal for women to come to a different state to get a legal abortion and to criminalize folks who assist that woman, for example.

Anything like that that impairs the ability of Washington state to provide safe and legal abortions for any woman in this country.

That is where Washington state could be involved legally to protect the rights of that woman, to come to our state to access the full range of reproductive health options that they're entitled to here in Washington state.

So we're still in the early days on this need to wait to see what that opinion comes out.

But there could definitely be legal ramifications, and that's one that my office is obviously getting prepared for.

People in Washington state voted twice, in fact, to codify Roe versus Wade.

But you know, the last time I think there was 91 , that was a really narrow yes vote on abortion rights.

You know, can't the Legislature simply change the current law codifying Roe versus Wade , maybe to conform to the Supreme Court draft decision Yes.

In other words, a legislature could take action that would reverse those protections.

Congress could pass a federal law that would limit abortion rights across the country.

So this Supreme Court decision, if it comes out, if it really is a final decision, is by no means necessarily the end of the conversation when it comes to Roe versus Wade by any stretch of the imagination.

So, you know, our role in the AG's office will be clear right to defend that.

As you mentioned, initiative that passed by a very narrow margin.

Now, look, I think since that was adopted, people's state of Washington are even more firmly in support of legal and safe abortions here in Washington state.

In addition, I'd say, on the other hand, Governor Inslee at a press conference, we had just this last week has even talked about the idea of a constitutional amendment to enshrine and protect legal and safe abortions here in Washington state.

So again, or in early days, and reacting to this unprecedented release of a draft opinion, to be sure, Essex.

I guess I'd want the folks who are listening to know is that, hey, my job is to defend and enforce washing state law here in Washington state Women have the right to a safe and legal abortion, and it's my job in the job , my team to make sure we do everything in our power to protect them.

Yeah, the draft decision basically says that there is little or no right to privacy, which the Roe v. Wade decision is based on.

If there is no constitutional right to privacy , what other rights do we now have What other rights are at risk?

And so I'm so glad you asked that question asks Because at that press conference, I alluded to this point, right?

That if we really have a Supreme Court that is saying, Hey, we look at our document, our Constitution from over 200 years ago, unless you have a right that is specifically spelled out in that constitution.

Well, guess what?

Americans , you don't have it.

Well, a right to privacy is one such example.

And if that is the case, the right to marry right, the person you love could be jeopardized.

The rights to other forms of reproductive rights could be jeopardized as well.

The right to parent.

The list goes on and on and on.

And so look , this draft opinion, if it becomes law, is , you know, an earthquake when it comes to reproductive rights.

To be sure, It also has the potential to be an earthquake, a legal earthquake when it comes to rights that Americans have essentially taken for granted now for many, many years.

If the Supreme Court is essentially on a path of eviscerating a right to privacy, that would your question lead to all sorts of questions about other rights that are protected by a right to privacy.

And you can be sure that there be organizations and individuals that try to get those kinds of cases before the Supreme Court.

Again, if they think , and since that's where the court is headed.

Final question for an L on this, I see our audience questions coming in and they have some questions as well, but we'll move on to some other subjects.

But before we leave, I this is a draft decision it leaked from the Supreme Court.

It is rare that this sort of thing leaks and certainly almost unprecedented, that it leaks in this detail.

But what do you think of the idea of the leak?

I mean, what's was it wrong for this to leak?

That's a tough question.

A6 I'm, I guess to be cannot not spend a whole lot of time thinking about that component of this write up and so focused on the earlier questions you asked What does this mean for for women in the state of Washington across the country?

And so I guess I can't speak to what's right or what's wrong, right?

What I will say is it is most assuredly unprecedented and especially not a case of this magnitude.

And the court has, of course, operated in terms of the drafting of those opinions right over many, many, many years in almost total secrecy.

So I guess I'm not in position to say who knows who leaked it?

Someone from the right, from the left, who the heck knows?

I guess what I would say, though, from my standpoint, is it's not a shock.

What's in that draft opinion?

I'll just be real honest.

I mean, I don't think one's been paying attention if one surprised by what's in that opinion that this has been coming for some time.

And and I guess I'm just focused on what's in that draft opinion and preparing our office for a future.

If that opinion is actually approved by a majority of the court Yeah, one of the very big issues over the last few years here has been police accountability The Legislature made changes in 2021 to limit biased policing Then there were concerns and even protests from law enforcement agencies.

So the Legislature made some changes in 2022.

I want to focus on one of those changes and that was the use of physical force to stop someone and whether that physical force needs to be used based on a reasonable suspicion or a boy.

And I'm trying to remember you'll help me probable cause, probably probable cause theory stops.

Yes.

Yes.

So , you know, my question is, you know, the Legislature decided to use that the more relaxed standard reasonable suspicion and made that change.

Does that mean officers are now less accountable and more able to act with bias?

No.

I don't think so.

I mean, my sense is that officers are more accountable as a result of these changes.

We've seen the Legislature over the past two sessions and but we can spend a whole hour on these.

Obviously, as you know, and I'm not a member of the Legislature , but of course have an interest in the subject, and we issued some legal opinions around the first round of changes.

The Legislature made.

As your audience, as our audience probably recalls two sessions ago, And those were changes led by legislators like Jesse Johnson, the 13th District who really were trying to move after all sorts of national headlines.

George Floyd and other situations where really the use of force was wildly disproportionate and even criminal particular against individuals of color.

And so in that spirit, the Legislature took a series of reforms to make progress in that area.

The sense was from some in law enforcement that those may have gone too far, that they felt limited, that there are certain uncertainties or ambiguity in these changes that passed that session two sessions ago that tied their hands.

If a person was fleeing, for example, right?

Could they follow that person if someone had a mental health situation, could they intervene?

These were the questions law enforcement was facing in and you know, to the legislators credit, I think they re-examined that this last session and said, Hey, we don't want to have ambiguity here.

We want to have clarity around what is required and have additional protections for individuals when they are having interaction with law enforcement.

And so that's what the Legislature did in this most recent session.

So I think since those changes in the last session have gone into effect, certainly I've not been hearing from law enforcement in the same way that it was a year ago after the first legislative session in which a lot of law enforcement folks that Hey Bob, we need some clarity around this.

My response was it really it's up to the Legislature.

When they pass a law, they're the ones have to clarify what do they mean by the term force, for example, and what law enforcement can or cannot do?

That said, at the end of two sessions, a lot of debate, a lot of strong feelings on both sides.

I do think overall , any fair reading of what the Legislature has done is they've made improvements when it comes to reforms in the criminal justice system in a way that I think respects individuals and respects law enforcement.

In these often difficult interactions that take place , you've undertaken a long, a years long fight on legislation for gun safety And in this past Legislature, you were able to to win after a number of years.

A ban on the sale of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

People, however, are still allowed to keep their older, larger magazines.

So why does this even matter?

Oh, it matters because it'll save lives, right?

So just to be clear, for the audience in Washington state, which we think of as a blue state, a progressive state, it was perfectly legal in Washington state prior to the session to purchase and use what's called a double drum magazine.

This was used in the Dayton shooting, for example, where dozens and dozens of people were injured and killed in less than a minute because the shooter literally had a double drum magazine that holds 100 rounds.

So he did not have to stop to reload.

He can fire off with his High-Capacity magazines dozens of rounds in seconds.

Well, that High-Capacity Double Drum magazine was perfectly legal to purchase in Washington state.

And when you see these mass shootings, what happens is shooters use these high-capacity magazines.

When you see people get away or stop a gunman, it's often they have to stop to reload In those few vital seconds, you can tackle the gunman or you can escape or with a double drum magazine.

What chance do you have?

And so finally, I think in our sixth year proposing it as attorney general, we did pass it with the Legislature.

This year.

The ban on High-Capacity magazines, which limits those to 10 rounds now.

That is perfectly appropriate for self-defense.

Right?

But also does not allow these high-capacity magazines that can do so much damage.

So the evidence is clear.

There's been study after study that shows states that ban high-capacity magazines.

When you have a mass shootings, fewer lives are lost, fewer individuals are injured.

And so look, it's it's It was a great day.

The Legislature adopted that and we have more work to do when it comes to keeping our community safe.

But it was a long road to get that that bill passed as agency request legislation from my office, and we're so glad the Legislature finally took that step.

And this is effective even though people can keep the large magazines they have now that that is correct.

And so what you see are individuals who purchase these magazines, purchase these weapons, for example, and then go out and do something terrible They will no longer be able to purchase those weapons here in Washington state.

One of the things you've you've also advocated for and had success with is a ban on ghost guns, guns that are created without any sort of registration.

I think that's been in effect for a year or two, maybe a little bit longer.

But have you noticed any impact on what the good news on that sex is?

You don't read too many news stories of individuals using ghost guns to commit crimes here in Washington state.

Those are headlines you see across the country.

But there have been an uptick in the use of these ghost guns nationwide.

and just so the audience is clear.

A Ghost Gun is something that does not have a serial number that can evade metal detectors.

For example, And so you can't trace them.

You cannot detect them And literally, folks can send files across the internet and you print these out with your printers at home and put them together.

And someone who is not legally entitled to own a gun can put together one of these so-called ghost guns and use it to create all sorts of criminal acts.

And so here in Washington, I did propose that we eliminate that right to drive those out of our system Look, folks are still going to try and find a way around that.

But this law has made a huge impact.

You read about other states where they have a huge challenge with ghost guns.

They're going to be around.

I think in Washington, we're trying to get out ahead of this issue again.

for these untraceable, undetected, undetectable firearms and pass that law was a critical step.

Look, you're never going to completely shut these things down, right On the earlier question of High-Capacity magazines, right?

Sometimes people will find things , but you need to make it as difficult as possible in this case to make it illegal to possess those.

Yeah.

Very pleased this morning to chat with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson this morning.

We've had a bunch of issues to talk about will be getting to your questions in about 10 minutes or so.

One of the things , attorney general, that you have been also pushing very hard are lawsuits when it comes to opioids.

Lawsuits against the pharmaceutical companies who , according to the suits, anyway flooded this state and frankly flooded the nation with opioids.

And so many people became addicted.

You know, up until recently, you wouldn't.

Rejecting multimillion dollar settlements.

Why did you put that money at risk?

Yeah, that's, you know, sometimes asked.

When I speak at law schools, say, Hey, what's the toughest decision you've had as attorney general?

And what often mentioned are these opioid lawsuits where you're talking about, first of all, huge impacts to individuals and families and communities.

I've spoken to way too many parents who have lost their children to opioid addiction These were thriving kids who got caught up in the addiction through a sports injury or something else that happened.

They start taking opioids, they get addicted and their lives are never the same.

And so there happened to your point, a series of lawsuits brought by myself and other attorneys general against these large corporations, often Fortune 15 corporations that, in our view, acted illegally and fueled the opioid epidemic They were deceptive in downplaying the addictive qualities, for example, of opioids is one example.

So you're right that there have been a couple very high-profile national settlements, with ages of both parties agreeing to resolutions with the Sackler family.

For example, Purdue Pharmaceutical or Cardinal Health big entities I rejected the two largest of those And I think I was the only attorney general to reject them both.

And these are you know, hundreds of millions of dollars.

And if you told me when I was in law school, Essex, I would ever be offered $400 million to resolve a lawsuit for a client.

I would say, no, I said, You're crazy, right?

That's so much money to your point.

But I felt in each of those proposed settlements that are simply was not enough money and not enough accountability for those companies or families.

In the case of the Sackler family, And so to give you a short answer, I know we're in the history time I just felt we could do better in Washington if we took these cases to trial or took those entities to court.

Now there is significant risk with that approach.

You're 100 percent right about that.

Litigation is uncertain But I just had to follow my instincts on that.

And so far it's paid off with the Sackler case.

Purdue Pharmaceutical.

We rejected that.

We let a coalition of a small number of states challenging that bankruptcy deal.

And as a result, of that, we brought in more than 100 hundred million more for washing state than we would have if we'd accepted the deal.

Same thing with this distributors case.

We took a trial and just reached a resolution.

We're bringing nearly $50 million more as a result of going to trial, but if I taking the deal.

So I also rejected the deal with Johnson and Johnson that my colleagues around the country virtually all accepted.

We go to trial against them in September of this year.

So is there a risk?

Yes.

Does it keep me up at night?

Yes.

Hard to be sure.

You know, it's going to be a pretty bad day at the office.

If I lost one of those cases, for example.

But I have to what I think is right as a lawyer for the people and you asked earlier about what is justice right?

And to me, justice was not the settlement amounts.

Those entities or families were paying for those national settlements.

They needed to pay more for Washington state for the harm that they cause.

Was there a risk?

Yes.

But has that decision have those decisions paid off so far for Washington?

They certainly have, and I just will add also that I have tremendous confidence in my team , fantastic group of lawyers and professional staff, and a lot of confidence that we could deliver a positive result.

And so far, that's been the case.

We've talked about your lawsuits against the Trump administration But now you're fighting the Biden Administration on a Hanford workers safety.

How do you come into conflict conflict now with the Biden Administration?

Well, I'm not in conflict with them.

They're in conflict with me.

and the people, the state of Washington and our state legislature.

I mean, it's truly maddening ethics.

So this goes back to the Hanford nuclear waste site, which as this audience knows, has the most highly radioactive nuclear waste in all of North America.

And there have been issues related to worker safety at Hanford and the workers not have enough the right gear to protect themselves.

In fact, my first lawsuit against the president was not against Donald Trump.

It was against Obama's administration over the administration's lack of protection of those workers.

We won that case , by the way.

In any event, the state legislature a few years ago passed a law , an excellent law bypass and that gave additional protections for workers if they get sick on the job at Hanford.

Hey, if someone's got tougher job in the state, than trying to clean up the nuclear waste, the Hanford let me know.

It's a pretty tough job.

Well, guess what happened to Trump Administration challenge that law and washing state We successfully defended in the federal trial court and the federal court appeals and Joe Biden got elected president.

And to be honest, I thought that'd be the end of it, that they would not appeal the new administration.

The Biden Administration would not take that appeal all the way the U.S. Supreme Court.

But I was wrong.

They did appeal it and we went to the Tri-Cities, had a press conference with workers there to say this is outrageous.

Joe Biden campaigned as a friend of workers, and yet his administration, his Department of Justice , is challenging a bipartisan wash state law that helps workers at the Hanford nuclear waste site.

They still took it to Supreme Court.

We went back and argued that just a couple of weeks ago, a terror hides from my office did a very good job, and we'll just wait and see what the U.S. Supreme Court decides about the constitutionality and legality that washing state law that does nothing more than give additional protections for those workers at the Hanford nuclear waste site.

So the bottom line is look, whether it's Barack Obama or Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

It does matter whether I support those presidents or do not support those presidents if they take an action or their administration takes an action that harms Washingtonians.

Look, that's going to get my attention and they're going to see me in court.

Yeah.

Well, before we move to audience questions, let me ask a question that I've already seen in our audience question list.

And that is your political future.

You know, you had planned to run for governor, depending on what Governor Inslee did back in 2020.

We're coming up on twenty twenty four.

Are you planning to run for governor now?

Well, to be clear, I wasn't necessarily planning on running for governor.

I'd made it clear I was open to that, thinking about that if Governor Inslee did not run for a third term.

He chose to run for a third term.

So I made my decision easy to run for a third term as attorney general , I respect and like the governor, a great deal.

And so , you know, one thing I've learned ethics is, you know, politics is an interesting business and I think the best politics to do, the best you can, the job you've got and I love the job that I've got.

We've got young kids at home as we've talked about your 14 year old twins.

And so , you know, we'll see what the governor decides to do.

I'm enjoying the work I'm doing It's keep me busy.

And if the governor decides not to run for a fourth term, obviously I would take a close look at that.

But right now, my focus is.

Well, as you can tell from this conversation, my focus is, is , is pretty is pretty clearly on the job.

Yeah, Well, you've had an incredible impact You know, and depending on one's point of view, perhaps for negative, as attorney general , what sort of impact could you have as a governor?

Well, you know, it's interesting.

I mean, you know, I've reflected on that a little bit.

It is, you know, the jobs are very different ethics and a certain respect, right?

As attorney general, you have certain freedoms.

The governor does not have right.

If I want to take on the Biden Administration of the Biden Administration or opioid distributors not playing by the rules.

I don't go to the state legislature and ask their permission.

Right?

I don't call up the governor to ask permission.

I'll give a heads up.

But that's my decision to make And candidly, I enjoy that right.

I've got this great team.

We go forth and seek justice.

That word again, that you start off.

We seek justice as we see it.

I get that a lot of people a state may not agree with decisions.

I make , but that's part of the process.

A governor is a very different position in a certain sense, You have a wider range of authority.

Of course, that's clear.

On the other hand, by definition, you often have to work through the legislative process to achieve the results you want.

I guess it's it's just a different job.

I feel the job I have now is is well suited for my for my particular skill set.

And and if the governor decides not to run for a fourth term, obviously I would think very seriously about about running for governor and also what the impact would be on, you know, on the young family.

And you know, one thing is clear is I'd only run for governor if I was sure I could still attend all of my daughter's softball games and and still go climbing with my son.

OK, let's move to some of the audience questions.

Your political future was one of those questions, but there are things on the audience mind as well Since we're talking about politics, one of the questions from the audience is do you consider whether the cases you bring will be politically divisive?

Do I consider whether it be politically divisive?

I'm aware if they're divisive.

Most are not right.

We do a lot of consumer protection work right.

The opioids litigation.

I don't think those are big, high stakes.

But but I suspect the question gets to issues like a litigation gets a Trump Administration, for example.

right, where clearly a lot of people in the state did not like what I was doing.

I understand that.

So I think the way I would answer that thoughtful question is I'm obviously aware of that.

But ethics , when it came to that litigation in particular, going back to that first Muslim Travel Ban when trying to decide how am I really going to file a lawsuit against the president , assuming there are three relevant questions that I need to ask myself, is the attorney for the people and that is number one.

Are Washingtonians being harmed Number two, do we have good legal arguments?

And number three, can I, as attorney general, do I have the legal authority to bring the lawsuit?

Sometimes I do.

Sometimes I don't.

I'll spare you the the.

The legal arguments are outstanding issues, but it's, you know, those three questions.

If the answers were yes, yes and yes, Washingtonians are being harmed.

We have good legal arguments and I have the authority to file a lawsuit will seem that those yes, yes and yes.

And frankly, it's my duty to bring the lawsuit regardless of what the political ramifications are, regardless of whether it's popular, regardless of anything else, that the rest was just sort of outside noise.

And I need to focus on my job as a lawyer for the people.

And that's the way we tried to approach it, certainly with the Trump Administration.

There are plenty of lawsuits I want to file, but to answer one of those questions was a no like the fact that of the 52 cases that ended in a result by a federal judge or judges or the U.S. Supreme Court, we want 50 out of 52.

So our track record speaks for itself that we were staying focused on the law.

Long what I would say to someone who didn't like those cases is, Well, do you want a president who exceeds the law of either political party, right?

You want to have a check and a balance in our system.

That's what it's all about.

And I would just say, Hey, you know, maybe focus on administration that can't get it right 50 out of 52 times when they enact executive orders or take some action that has profound impacts on the people or our environment.

and our state and across our country.

Yeah, we talked to him about this at the beginning, but one of the audience members is asking very directly if there comes to be a federal law that criminalizes abortion Does the supremacy clause override the Washington state constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose?

And I'm not sure Washington state actually has a constitutional protection, but but please, what do you think about that?

Yeah, so complex question a lot of ifs and possibilities there, but no one the governor did mention.

I might have mentioned this earlier, but at the press conference we had, whoever asked the question may be interested in that The governor talked about the idea of a constitutional amendment here in Washington state to enshrine the protections of a legal and safe abortion here in Washington state.

So just putting that out there in the first may want Drexel questions the Legislature or the governor about that.

Number two, look, there is a concern that I have is obviously with this draft opinion if it becomes the law, but also a concern of what might be next.

So, for example, if Republicans take control of the House and the Senate and the Oval Office of a Congress election, a federal law that makes abortion illegal or criminalizes that which would have even more profound implications than this draconian and frankly extremist Supreme Court decision.

So.

And let me let me interrupt.

Should they do that, should they pass such a law?

If Washington were also to pass abortion rights and into the Constitution, of why should voters decide to do that?

Would a federal law override what then would be a Washington constitutional protection?

Well, what I would say to that Essex is obviously that's extremely hypothetical, right?

A lot depends on how things are written, both on the constitutional side and on the federal side.

The job of my office would be defend that constitutional change or that state law here in Washington state against any challenge in federal government.

So maybe a good analogy would be marijuana legalization Totally different subject, right?

But you got a federal law that says marijuana possession and sale is illegal, and we have a Washington state law that says no , no, it's legal and you've got a tension there, right?

Obviously, we have prepared for potential litigation with the federal government around that.

Thankfully, never came to pass.

But our duty and job would be prepare for that and be raided and the will of Washington voters, the Legislature.

That would be the same situation if something that extreme and that draconian were to happen at the federal level.

Okay.

Completely different subject question from our audience Do you work with the city attorney at all when it comes to her positions on pursuing different approaches?

to crime in Seattle?

Yeah, you know, people often think that the AG's office, sometimes people think we actually helped run the city offices right or the county offices.

They, of course, is the person asking the question knows they have their own lawyers.

City of Seattle, for example, has the city attorney.

All cities have their city attorney counties have their county prosecutor's offices.

So we are not.

We're not.

They're lawyers.

We don't have any oversight over them that totally separate offices, total different authority.

So there are times when the city, any particular city right and the state AG's office, sometimes we're having conversations Honestly, it's often Essex.

When there's a lawsuit between the city and the state of Washington that happens sometimes right with a biotech, for example, there is litigation where I would talk to Pete Holmes, the prior city attorney, fairly frequently about litigation between the city and the state.

And so there are times where there's communications when it comes to criminal enforcement.

What folks may not realize, which is seems a little counterintuitive to folks, is that in Washington state, the criminal authority, if someone breaks into your house, someone steals your car.

If you're injured or God forbid, by somebody, the criminal authority rests with either your city attorney or your county prosecutor.

County prosecutor, for example, handles the felonies.

Typically, your city attorney handles the misdemeanors, the state AG's office.

We actually do not have that authority.

The only way we have criminal authority is if a local prosecutor, I'm in King County right now.

Dan Satta calls us, Hey Bob, would you take this case for us because we have a conflict and can't bring it or don't have the resources.

So we have a small criminal division, but I only have authority to bring a criminal case.

If a prosecutor asked me to take a case and so when it comes to issues with the City Attorney's Office, there is conversations obviously work together on opioid litigation.

You name it, where the city in the state are both involved in litigation , but it might be more limited than than some folks think.

Yeah, yeah.

Another audience question and again, a different subject this audience member writes some of the most pollution impacted communities is are low income and majority black indigenous people of color.

Are there any mechanisms in place now?

or plan to address this great.

In fact, topical questions so the state legislature just approved mea culpa HEAL Act, the acronym Eagle and the questioner.

If they don't know about this, you look it up.

My guess is they probably know all about it, but it's the healthy environment for all active.

I've got my acronym correct and it requires about seven state agencies to take specific actions to address issues related to environmental justice.

Some that's been frankly long overlooked by state policymakers and state agencies for too long.

I know nowhere near the end of our time, but but just to put a fine point to it, it is well documented.

Essex, of course, that the negative impacts of all sorts Environmental issues are often borne by lower income communities and communities that are probably people of color and landfills or things that happen.

They're going to have a negative environmental consequence are often end up being the impact is borne by those communities.

So the HEAL Act seeks to address that where when agencies are making decisions that they have to think about these issues before they make decisions Other state agencies can choose to opt into the HEAL Act right to take it upon themselves to follow these new rules requirements.

So the AG's office, I think we're the very first agency to join in on that.

One thing I'll also add is that I've created environmental enforcement team in my office We've not happened one before I was attorney general, but to enforce our environmental laws in a criminal and the civil context.

And one thing we've done now is try to be a leader when it comes to environmental justice issues.

We've led symposiums across the state.

We're bringing folks on board are looking at potential cases that address these issues.

and think about the way we file cases from an environmental justice framework.

And we've hired a couple of folks to help oversee our implementation of the HEAL Act as an office.

So there's a lot going on in the AG's office when it comes this, and I appreciate the question because I don't say it's overlooked there is some attention, of course, paid to issues related to environmental justice, but but not nearly enough.

And so I appreciate the question.

Encourage what we're asked the question to reach out to my office that they want to get.

We have a lot more information we'd be happy to share with him or her.

Yeah.

Another question , a similar vein here.

Some of the most diverse cities are often the most segregated in schools, workplaces and neighborhoods, and living spaces.

What role can legislation play in championing integration and equity across many generations?

We have look, we have a system when it comes to, I think embedded in the question was education , which is well known of disparities in our education system.

You know, throughout our nation's history, I think I mentioned earlier, I spent a year with a Jesuit volunteer corps, Essex, and part of my job was tutoring in and school tutoring program with kids from this inner-city neighborhood and look, you know, it's that was an eye opener for me on comparing my educational, my education as a as a kid with what I was seeing with these children.

And so, you know, the question goes to the Legislature, what what is off the Legislature to do?

I guess one thing I would focus on I'm not a legislator, so I'll start with that, right?

This is sort of above my pay grade outside of my of my lane.

But I mentioned this subject.

You know, there's been a lot written nationally about disparities in our education system, lack of funding rate, whether everything from the books to the facilities to you name it.

And as speaking as a son of a school teacher, look, do I think we need even greater investments in our school systems, in our students and teachers and teacher salaries?

For God's sakes, And yeah, we do.

And and and we're a long way from achieving that.

Now, look, I'm not a legislator that I don't control the budget either.

That's not my that's not my world.

But what if ever was I be focused on those issues, to be sure?

Yeah.

This question comes from me , not our audience.

But you know, as I think Governor Inslee noted in his presentation, you defended a number of lawsuits based on his emergency powers in the pandemic and have not lost a lawsuit on his emergency powers.

But I wonder if that does not tell you that maybe those emergency powers are too broad?

Well, that's interesting question , because I guess first of all, I'd say that I'm proud of the team's record number one on successfully defending the governor's emergency proclamation Number two, what I would say is, you know, I recognize that the pandemic has had a profound impact on individuals, but also on businesses in our state.

I was in Quincy just last week and went to a local restaurant to watch the Sounders game CONCACAF finals there and talk to the owner there about, you know, he was able to barely hold on, you know, through the through the pandemic.

And so, you know, I recognize that there are strong views on those orders and there are real consequences to businesses and individuals as a result of that.

That said, you know, our job is turned the governor and do I believe that those actions helped keep our state healthier and safer as a result of those actions?

You bet.

And so, you know, the question of what is the right amount of authority given to a governor that is a hundred percent for the Legislature to decide and ultimately, people in Washington state is clear.

The governor has broad authority.

There's no doubt about that.

And you've seen in other states where challenges to governors proclamations and other states were struck down, the governor's powers were struck down or the authority is not so great.

And so I know the Legislature had conversations about that.

But it's hard to argue with the fact that proportionate to our state, the fact that we were first hit by COVID, the number of deaths we've had, those governor, those governor proclamations undoubtedly save lives and it is always a balance.

And I can assure you, you know, I can't speak about the substance of conversations I've had with the governor, but I obviously, but I can't say that, you know, there were times where I was glad that wasn't my job.

You know, in making those decisions.

And I would say that we had a governor who was aware of the consequences of both sides.

And I think those weighed heavily on him and and he chose a path that I think undoubtedly saved lives and frankly were constitutional as well.

If the Legislature or the people don't like that and won't place limits around that , they can do that.

That's their authority.

But our duty is clear in my office to defend those laws, and we did that successfully.

There were challenges in state court, Federal Court, eastern Washington, western Washington, you name it, and we were successful in defining those all the way through just or maybe 15 seconds or so left.

But I just wondered, you know, we've had a broad discussion.

Is that is there a final thought you'd like to leave people with?

Well, I guess maybe it's the final thought is kind of where we started.

You talked about justice, right?

And and I think folks have different ideas of what justice means.

But I just I saw hope from this conversation.

I'm glad you live with that, right?

It's something that I think about every day.

It's it's my whole life is that and I guess I'd want people to know is that if there's anything they are experiencing a consumer issue, a civil rights issue and environmental justice, you you name it to contact our office.

Most of the cases we bring, frankly, Essex on behalf of the people, come because somebody writes to us with a problem and that leads us to explore that.

And so really encourage people to reach out, really appreciate us and all the questions and the questions of the audience.

I've been fighting a really terrible cold the last couple of days.

COVID negative, thank God.

But appreciate your patience with me this morning as I thought my way through.

It's great to see you.

All right, and thank you very much for joining us here at the Crosscut Festival.

You know, for for folks watching, there are many other great sessions at the Crosscut Festival.

I think coming up in roughly an hour from now.

And it will be a group of mayors, including Seattle Mayor Seattle's Mayor Harrell.

That'll be a very interesting discussion to watch as well.

And again, I'm pleased and honored to have been your moderator for this session and thank you again, Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and thank you all who joined us to watch