Trump says Iran agrees to turn over 'nuclear dust'

(The Center Square) - California Attorney General Rob Bonta has announced an unredacted version of his motion for a preliminary injunction against Amazon.

In 2022, the Office of the Attorney General announced a lawsuit against the company for “stifling competition and causing increased prices.” Earlier this year, Bonta filed a preliminary injunction to immediately stop Amazon from engaging in illegal price fixing.

During a livestream announcement Monday, Bonta said Amazon has “strong-armed vendors” into raising prices elsewhere or pulling products from competing retailers altogether so that Amazon can protect its profit margins.

“That's not competition,” said Bonta. “It's price fixing, and under California law, it's illegal.”

The Center Square reached out Monday to Amazon, which is based in Seattle, and other retailers mentioned by Bonta, but did not get a response by press time.

According to Bonta, the newly announced version of his filing paints a clear and disturbing picture.

“Amazon has been coordinating with vendors and major retailers, including Target, Walmart, Chewy, Best Buy and Home Depot, to raise prices across the market,” said Bonta. “This is about protecting Californians from paying more than they should for everyday products, especially at a time when affordability feels farther out of reach. It's about making sure prices are set by real competition, not behind-the-scenes pressure from Amazon.”

Bonta stressed that the prices were not suggestions from Amazon, rather “directives often backed by threats of penalties” if vendors failed to comply.

“Amazon used vendors as the middleman,” directing them to contact retailers and push for price increases so Amazon wouldn't have to compete, Bonta said.

These are “concrete” examples of “a widespread scheme” going back years and involving different product categories, the attorney general told reporters.

“That's why we're asking the court to immediately stop these practices while our case proceeds,” said Bonta. “Specifically, we're asking the court to prohibit Amazon from agreeing with vendors or competing retailers to fix or raise prices, using vendors as intermediaries to coordinate pricing, communicating with vendors in ways that facilitate price coordination, and demanding payments tied to price matching.”

OAG has also requested an independent monitor to ensure compliance.

“Notably, the court has already denied Amazon's motion for summary judgment on a key cross-claim, a significant setback for Amazon's attempt to avoid being held accountable,” said Bonta.

Near the end of his announcement, Bonta said OAG is not asking Amazon to change its business model. Instead, OAG is asking Amazon to follow the law. That includes California’s Cartwright Act, which makes price fixing illegal.

“Courts have long held that prices must be determined by supply and demand, by market forces, not by agreements orchestrated by a dominant company like Amazon,” said Bonta. “When a company pressures vendors to raise prices elsewhere or withdraw products to protect its own profits, it interferes directly with the competitive process.”

That, said Bonta, takes money out of the pockets of California families every single day on common household items such as diapers, clothing and furniture.

Estimates vary on how many U.S. homes have an Amazon Prime membership. Bonta put that figure at nearly 80 million. Capitol One Shopping puts it at just over 88 million. Snopes.com puts it around 147 million. Whatever the number is, Bonta said 92% of consumers say they’re more likely to buy from Amazon than any other site.

“So when prices are manipulated, there are real consequences for working families,” said Bonta. “The evidence shows coordinated efforts to stabilize or increase prices, harming consumers and distorting the marketplace.”

(The Center Square) – Businesses worldwide are urging caution as the U.S. Trade Representative's Office prepares for key hearings central to President Donald Trump's renewed push for higher import taxes, an effort aimed at rebuilding a protectionist tariff wall.

Trump could implement the higher tariffs as early as July under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the president to impose tariffs after investigating specific trade issues. The administration launched these investigations in March, with hearings set for May 5. A major concern for businesses is the possibility of exemptions. Section 301 has no established process for exclusions, but a recent Congressional Research Service report noted uncertainty about whether the Trade Representative's Office "would establish a new exclusion process for current or future tariff actions."

Businesses began submitting public comments last week ahead of the hearings.

Ford, of the nation's largest auto makers, urged the Trade Representative's Office to ensure that the new Section 301 tariffs do not add to the existing tariffs.

"Ford strongly supports USTR’s intention to ensure continuity between the tariff structure deployed under IEEPA and any new Section 301 tariff framework. This will ensure that any tariff remedy enacted as a result of these investigations is not placed upon vehicles with internal combustion engines and parts from China already subject to Section 232 auto tariffs," Ford's Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel Steven Croley wrote in a letter. "We ask that automakers be able to use our tariff offset credit for imported content subject to any new remedy implemented under Section 301."

The National Corn Growers Association said that the administration must take steps to shield farmers from higher tariff costs.

"Farmers must have relief from additional cost pressures on inputs, which duty-free treatment for all categories of agricultural inputs would help alleviate. As the Administration pursues this Section 301 investigation in 60 countries, NCGA asks for Mexico and Canada to be exempted from this investigation, strong consideration to preserving and enhancing market access, and duty-free treatment for all inputs to prevent burdening farmers with even higher costs."

Waterloo, Wisconsin-based Trek Bicycle Co. urged against blanket tariffs that penalize everyone.

"The investigation covers 60 countries and does not identify specific goods with documented forced labor issues. We are concerned that broad-based tariffs applied across virtually all imports from most of the world's economies will not effectively target bad actors – they will simply raise costs for American consumers and businesses alike," Trek's General Counsel Robert Burns wrote.

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association also requested exemptions from the Section 301 tariffs. The group, which represents U.S. manufacturers of electrical goods, said if tariffs must be used, "we urge the Agency to pursue a sensible exclusion strategy that mitigates the impact of duties on electricity prices and U.S. AI leadership."

The U.S. Trade Representative's Office received more than 400 such letters, many of which sought exemptions, including from the Premium Cigar Association, which noted that the U.S. imports less than 1% of cigars from the European Union but that import taxes could still affect U.S. prices and consumers. It said cigars should be excluded from such tariffs.

"The greater majority of premium cigar retailers in the United States are single store, family owned, small businesses which operate on thin margins. Any price increases will be directly passed on to the consumer," the group noted.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing called on the administration to use tariffs to stamp out force-labor practices in other countries.

"The lack of enforcement by foreign governments regarding bans on forced labor imports adversely affects U.S. commerce in several ways: it replaces domestically produced goods with lower-cost imports; it inhibits investment and job growth within the United States; it weakens supply chain resilience in critical sectors; and it incentivizes exploitative practices that are rightly prohibited for U.S. firms both legally and ethically."

Delta said it supports narrow, targeted efforts to go after forced labor. However, it "respectfully urges USTR not to apply tariffs or other broad remedies to civil aircraft, engines, or aircraft parts as part of this Investigation."

Magtech Ammunition Company and Taurus Holdings urged against tariffs on "Brazilian-origin imports that are necessary to U.S. manufacturing; that equip hunters, sport shooters, and law-enforcement agencies nationwide with reliable, affordable ammunition; and that support U.S. national security interests," an attorney wrote on behalf of the two companies.

The shift to Section 301 comes after a turbulent legal period for the administration’s trade policy. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose worldwide tariffs was an overreach of executive power.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump's tariffs "could be back in place at the previous level by [the] beginning of July."

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the president and the U.S. Trade Representative's office to implement "retaliatory import restrictions" against a country that is found to have engaged in unfair or "discriminatory" trade policies or practices toward U.S. businesses.

In April 2025, Trump unilaterally imposed the highest tariffs in nearly a century. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods paid by importers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs worldwide. The court did not decide the fate of $166 billion in import taxes already collected, leaving the U.S. Court of International Trade to oversee ongoing litigation over refunds.

At the same time, the states and small businesses that challenged Trump's IEEPA tariffs have also challenged Trump's latest 10% global entry tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That challenge remains pending before the Court of International Trade.

Trump has defended the tariffs, saying the revenue could fund increased military spending and other goals, including a tariff refund check for some Americans. Experts have questioned whether tariffs will raise enough money to cover these costly spending plans.

Trump has also said the tariffs will help bring back manufacturing jobs lost to low-wage countries over the past few decades.

Multiple economic studies have found that U.S. businesses and consumers are bearing the brunt of Trump's tariffs. A Federal Reserve Bank of New York report, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, and a December 2025 Duke University study all concluded that Americans are paying nearly the entire cost of tariffs, not foreign nations, as the White House has said.

(The Center Square) - Eight Snohomish firefighters are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify what an employer is required to prove under federal law before denying a religious accommodation for vaccines. 

Several attorneys filed a petition last Thursday, asking the court to review a 2024 Ninth Circuit ruling siding with Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue. The agency denied the firefighters' vaccine exemptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that granting them would have caused SRFR undue hardship. 

Cliff Martin, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, told The Center Square this isn’t about securing vaccine accommodations years after the fact; it’s about clarifying a split in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

A 2023 SCOTUS ruling requires employers to show that approving a Title VII religious accommodation would create undue hardship to deny the exemption. The Ninth Circuit and two other appellate courts only require a reasonable concern of that hardship, while three others require proof of actual hardship.

“It's a technical issue about the application of the undue hardship defense that an employer has to an accommodation case,” Martin told The Center Square in an interview. “So, we don't see this so much as a COVID case … because it's going to apply to all religious accommodation requests going forward.”

Martin said it could be months before SCOTUS decides whether to consider the petition. If it agrees to take up their case, the outcome could have major impacts on other religious accommodation lawsuits.

He wants SCOTUS to require proof that approving the firefighters’ vaccine accommodation would have caused SRFR to suffer undue financial hardship. Doing so could reverse the Ninth Circuit’s 2024 ruling and send their lawsuit back to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for a trial.  

SRFR had argued in federal court that allowing the firefighters to continue working unvaccinated would pose a safety risk to the rest of the agency and the public. It also claimed that exemptions would have caused operational burdens, since a total of 46 of 192 firefighters requested vaccine accommodations.

The eight plaintiffs went on leave in October 2021 and returned in May 2022, after the agency granted vaccine accommodations once the pandemic largely settled, without back pay for about seven months.

They filed a lawsuit in district court the following November, seeking back pay and financial damages. 

“These individuals went to nearby fire departments and worked for the whole eight months that they were laid off,” Martin said. “Clearly, you're able to accommodate them, because you did accommodate them eight months later. Yet still, the Ninth Circuit said, ‘No, we're letting them completely off the hook.’” 

According to the petition, one of the plaintiffs even provided mutual aid to SRFR after it had laid him off and he was working for another agency, despite SRFR having denied his religious accommodation.

Martin said the circuit courts’ split interpretation of the 2023 SCOTUS ruling could have arisen in any accommodation request. For example, a Jewish employee could request Saturdays off to worship, and a judge could allow an employer to deny the request if they claim it might create an undue hardship. 

“Under the Ninth Circuit, maybe that's enough, but we would hope the Supreme Court says, ‘No, you need more than a reasonable concern. You need to have evidence,’” Martin said. “If [SCOTUS] doesn't grant this petition… your experience of religious accommodation law will change based on geography.”

An SRFR spokesperson declined comment for this article, citing ongoing and pending litigation. 

The US Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a challenge by Catholic preschools to a state requirement that they enroll children of gay or transgender parents in order to receive public funds.

Colorado provides state funding for tuition at public or private preschools, including faith-based institutions, but has withheld it from Catholic preschools for violating nondiscrimination laws.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes in Colorado and two parents, Dan and Lisa Sheley, filed suit, but lost in lower courts, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

"All we want is the freedom to choose the best preschool for our kids without being punished for our faith," the Sheleys said in a statement. "Colorado promised families a universal preschool program, then cut out families like ours because we chose a Catholic education."

Nicholas Reaves, an attorney representing the schools and Sheleys, said, "Colorado promised free preschool for all, then slammed the door on families who chose a religious education for their children."

Colorado, in a filing with the Supreme Court, said participants in the preschool program must enroll children regardless of their race or religion or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child or their parents.

"Petitioners seek an exemption from this law to allow them to receive public funding while turning away preschoolers because of their, or their parents', gender identity or sexual orientation," the state said.

The conservative-dominated Supreme Court has sided with religious rights claims in a number of recent high-profile cases, several of which have involved Colorado.

In 2018, the court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, and last month the court backed a Christian therapist who challenged a Colorado law banning "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ minors.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the Catholic preschools case during its term beginning in October and issue a ruling by June 2027.

cl/mjf

Taliban officials are expected in Brussels in the coming weeks for talks on deporting Afghans from the EU to their home country, sources told AFP.

The European Union has been working on plans to deport those with no right to stay in the bloc back to Afghanistan, despite concerns from rights groups and the United Nations refugee agency.

The visit by Taliban officials, which is being coordinated by the European Commission and several member states, follows two trips by European officials to Afghanistan for "exploratory" discussions on the issue.

"The idea is to invite them before summer," a diplomatic source told AFP, saying the Taliban delegation would be a "technical" team.

European officials "are gathering information about flights, about capacity at Kabul airport, they're speaking with the Taliban about what would happen to the people sent back", said a source involved in the discussions.

The Commission has not yet sent an official invitation to the Taliban authorities.

Stepping up deportations has become a common refrain among EU countries, as souring public opinion on migration has fuelled right-wing electoral gains across the 27-nation bloc.

Around 20 EU countries have been exploring how to deport Afghans, particularly those convicted of crimes.

Germany has already started, deporting more than 100 Afghans since 2024, via charter flights facilitated by Qatar.

Austria has followed suit.

The Taliban delegation's visit was initially planned for late March, but is now set for the coming weeks, sources told AFP, confirming a report by news site Euractiv.

But the deportation push has raised multiple concerns.

Afghanistan is in the middle of a humanitarian crisis, compounded by drought and huge cuts in foreign aid, rights groups say.

And the EU does not officially recognise the Taliban authorities, who returned to power in 2021, imposing their strict interpretation of Islamic law.

EU countries received about a million asylum applications filed by Afghans between 2013 and 2024.

Afghans represented the largest group of applicants last year.

cjc/jhb/jj

Kevin Warsh, US President Donald Trump's choice to lead the Federal Reserve, will stress his dedication to central bank independence on interest rates at a crucial confirmation hearing Tuesday, according to prepared remarks seen by AFP.

"I am committed to ensuring that the conduct of monetary policy remains strictly independent," Warsh is to say in an opening statement to the Senate Banking Committee.

He is also expected to express commitment to fighting inflation.

The hearing, scheduled for 10:00 am (1400 GMT) on Tuesday, is a key hurdle Warsh needs to overcome in order to succeed Fed Chair Jerome Powell when his term at the helm ends on May 15.

But the session is likely to be tense, with all 11 Democrats on the Banking Committee last week urging for a delay of nomination proceedings until separate investigations into Powell and Fed governor Lisa Cook are closed.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis, who sits on the panel led by his party, has also vowed to block all Fed nominees -- including Warsh -- until the Justice Department probe involving Powell is resolved.

Warsh is due to face sharp questioning from lawmakers Tuesday on issues ranging from his wealth to past connections with the late US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as his views on economic issues.

In his prepared remarks, which were first reported by Politico, Warsh maintains that it is up to the Fed itself to stay free of political influence.

"I do not believe the operational independence of monetary policy is particularly threatened when elected officials -- presidents, senators, or members of the House -- state their views on interest rates," he notes.

In his opinion, "central bankers must be strong enough to listen to a diversity of views."

On inflation, he adds: "Inflation is a choice, and the Fed must take responsibility for it."

He says that price surges bring "grievous harm" to citizens.

But his prepared speech also emphasizes that the Fed must "stay in its lane," adding that "Fed independence is placed at greatest risk when it strays into fiscal and social policies where it has neither authority nor expertise."

Critics have slammed Warsh's nomination as an attempt by Trump to control the independent institution, as the US leader repeatedly pushes for lower interest rates.

Trump has sought to remove Fed governor Lisa Cook from office over allegations of mortgage fraud, and the case awaits judgment from the Supreme Court.

The Justice Department also earlier launched a probe into Powell and the Fed over renovations at the bank's headquarters, a move Powell called an attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate the bank.

bys/des

The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday it is requiring Blue Origin to conduct a "mishap investigation" after the space company's New Glenn rocket failed to deliver a communications satellite into the correct orbit.

On Sunday, the space company owned by Jeff Bezos successfully reused and recovered a booster for its New Glenn rocket, but the uncrewed mission did not deliver the satellite from the company AST SpaceMobile.

The FAA said in a statement to AFP that "a return to flight of the New Glenn vehicle is based on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety," adding that Blue Origin would lead the probe with FAA oversight.

Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp said in a statement posted to social media that "early data suggest that on our second GS2 burn, one of the BE-3U engines didn't produce sufficient thrust to reach our target orbit."

"While we are pleased with the nominal booster recovery, we clearly didn't deliver the mission our customer wanted, and our team expects," Limp said, adding that the company aims to "implement the improvements needed to quickly return to flight operations."

The New Glenn rocket, standing at 98 meters (321 feet) tall, lifted off from Florida's Cape Canaveral with its reused booster at about 7:25 am (1125 GMT) on Sunday carrying the satellite.

After liftoff, the rocket's two stages separated, with the upper stage continuing its journey carrying the satellite into space. Its booster successfully landed on a floating platform in the Atlantic Ocean about nine minutes and 30 seconds after takeoff.

But the communications satellite was placed in a lower orbit than planned.

AST SpaceMobile, which is working to develop a space-based cellular broadband network, said in a statement that "the altitude is too low to sustain operations."

"The cost of the satellite is expected to be recovered under the company's insurance policy," it said.

The New Glenn rocket is at the heart of Bezos's space ambitions as he competes with SpaceX, the rival company owned by fellow billionaire Elon Musk.

Both companies are working to develop lunar landers for NASA's Artemis program.

mdo/mjf

German basketball legend Dirk Nowitzki said Victor Wembanyama, who won on his play-off debut on Sunday, was "changing the game as we speak".

In an interview with AFP on Monday ahead of his induction into the FIBA Hall of Fame, Nowitzki said he was stunned by the impact the 22-year-old France player was having on the game. 

"I mean, he's changing the game as we speak. I've never seen anything like it," the 2007 NBA MVP said.

"His defense is so good that he changes the game just by being on the court and taking away some of the layups and twos that other teams would usually take."

Wembanyama scored 35 points, the most on a playoff debut in franchise history, to go with five rebounds and two blocks as his San Antonio Spurs beat the Portland Trail Blazers in round one of the playoffs.  

Playing just his third NBA season, the forward/centre is in the running for MVP and Defensive Player of the Year honours.

The 2011 NBA champion said Wembanyama had the other-worldly ability help the young Spurs overcome their lack of experience.

"They're definitely ready. They're definitely there. Of course, the one question about the Spurs is 'are they experienced enough?'

"But I think Wemby is kind of that x-factor that takes that away. He levels that whole experience thing out."

Nowitzki, 47, said the Spurs could get past defending champions Oklahoma City Thunder and reigning MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander.

Should the Spurs get past Portland and either the Denver Nuggets or the Minnesota Timberwolves in the next round, they are on track to meet the Thunder in the Western Conference Finals.

"They'll definitely think that they can. They're a tough matchup for OKC.

"We've seen that. They beat them like three times around Christmas.

"They have all the guards and can attack them. So I don't know if it's a year or two too early. We shall see.

"It's going to be a fun playoff run. So they're definitely knocking on the door."

A skillful European big man who could shoot, Nowitzki was a pioneer for players like Wembanyama, but said he had plenty to learn from the young Frenchman.

"You watch a game, you keep watching Wemby, and I'm like 'man, that's a cool move'... Let's go in the gym tomorrow and work on that."

"Learning the fundamentals of the game is a journey that keeps on going."

dwi/dmc

Swiss football club FC Basel on Monday confirmed to AFP they had turned down an approach about staging a Kanye West concert at their St. Jakob-Park ground.

The US rapper had a string of performances in Europe lined up over the coming months, but several have been cancelled or postponed in the last fortnight.

The 48-year-old artist, also known as Ye, has been heavily criticised for making antisemitic remarks and voicing admiration for Adolf Hitler.

St. Jakob-Park in Basel, on the French and German borders, is the biggest-capacity sports stadium in Switzerland and staged the UEFA Women's Euro 2025 final. The venue can host 40,000 fans during concerts.

Reigning Swiss champions Basel said they were interested in making more use of the venue in the northern city and carefully reviewed all enquiries.

"In this case, FCB received an enquiry and considered it," a spokesman for the club told AFP when asked about West.

"However, after a thorough review, we decided not to pursue the project further, as we cannot, in accordance with our values, provide a platform for the artist in question within this context."

The musician and producer has lost fans and several sponsorships in recent years following inflammatory comments and actions. 

No Basel concert was ever officially confirmed. It is understood that FC Basel was approached about a possible June 26 concert date but turned down the enquiry.

Britain has blocked the US rapper from entering the country due to his outbursts, prompting organisers of a three-night London festival he was headlining to cancel the July event.

West then announced last week that a concert he had planned to give in the French city of Marseille on June 11 had been postponed after authorities voiced opposition.

And a concert scheduled to take place in Poland on June 19 was cancelled by the venue in Chorzow on Friday, following condemnation of his antisemitic remarks.

West has previously said "I love Nazis", sold t-shirts featuring a swastika on his website, and last year released a track titled "Heil Hitler", which was banned by the main streaming platforms.

In January this year, he took out a full-page advert in The Wall Street Journal newspaper to declare "I am not a Nazi or an antisemite". He attributed his controversial behaviour to a "manic episode" brought on by bipolar disorder.

rjm/apo/jj

(The Center Square) – The Washington attorney general and Democratic leaders plotted how to overturn a nearly century-old decision that banned income taxes in the state, writing they want to force the state Supreme Court to reconsider its 1933 decision, nearly 1,000 pages of public records obtained by The Center Square show.

“I would like to force the Washington Supreme Court to reconsider its caselaw that considers income to be property," Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, who sponsored SB 6346, wrote in an email on Aug. 27

The bill that Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, signed into law March 30 imposes a 9.9% income tax on residents earning more than $1 million, but a lawsuit has been filed to block its implementation. 

Jackson Maynard, executive director and counsel at Citizen Action Defense Fund, which is suing to overturn the tax, wrote in an email to The Center Square that he has concerns about the conversations between the staff in the attorney general's office and lawmakers.

"I haven't reviewed any of these documents, but based on what you're telling me, I'm a bit alarmed," he wrote. "The Attorney General's role is to defend the constitution, not help the legislature find ways to violate it."

The Center Square obtained 988 pages of records that included communication between Washington State Attorney General’s Offices leadership and staff, and state legislators, regarding efforts to overturn the 1933 state Supreme Court decision declaring individuals' income to be their property. If the 1933 ruling is overturned, a simple majority vote in the Washington state Legislature would allow lawmakers to enact a progressive income tax imposed on every Washington earner.

The 1933 Culliton decision declared that a state progressive income tax is unconstitutional for violating the 1930 14th Amendment to the state constitution that requires all property taxes be uniform by class and that property was “all things tangible and intangible, subject to ownership.” Since Culliton, the state Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that income is property under the 14th Amendment’s definition.

Despite lawmakers having their own legal counsel, the AGO had previously told The Center Square that it is appropriate for them to give the legislative branch legal advice.

AG staff and Pedersen did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the records.

The Department of Revenue will not begin collecting revenue from the tax until 2028.

Overruling the ruling

In a Dec. 6 email, Pedersen sent a draft of the millionaire’s tax bill to Solicitor General Noah Purcell, saying “I welcome your thoughts and comments about what will give us the best shot to have Culliton overruled.”

Purcell wrote back suggesting an emergency clause to try to thwart a referendum to overturn the law if passed. 

“I did not see an emergency clause,” he wrote on Dec. 11. “Without one, someone could try to subject the bill to a referendum. It should not be subject to referendum because it raises revenue, but under the Secretary of State’s longstanding practice, they only reject proposed referenda if the bill has an emergency clause, so someone would have to sue to prevent a referendum on the bill as written. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that.”

The Citizens Action Defense Fund is currently in a legal fight with the Secretary of State’s Office after it refused to process a referendum seeking to overturn the millionaire’s tax.

The millionaire's tax has been touted publicly by proponents as a way to fund certain programs and provide tax relief to small businesses and lower income Washington families.

However, AGO Senior Counsel Chuck Zalesky wrote in a Jan. 19 email to Purcell that “the overall legislative goals, it seems to me, are to have our Supreme Court overturn Culliton v. Chase.”

While key legislative leadership has refrained from saying whether the tax rate or threshold will change, in his Aug. 27 email, Pedersen said regarding the tax that “I’d like to start with a rate of 9.99%.”

Legal advice on tax

Although Pedersen initially described it as an excise tax, Zalesky advised against it in a Jan. 7 email to Purcell.

“I wouldn’t monkey around with trying to characterize it as an excise tax,” he wrote. “That will only make the Leg. seem disingenuous. Instead, tee it up as a test case to try to get the ‘income = property’ line of cases overruled.”

Some AGO attorneys also advised removing a marriage penalty provision in the bill. A marriage penalty is when a higher tax rate applies to the lower-earning spouse when a married couple files jointly.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Dan Jensen wrote that "the better course is to eliminate it so that the case can focus on Culliton.”

Jensen had previously critiqued the bill language in a separate Jan. 21 email, writing “overall, we have concerns with crafting a tax with provisions this complicated if the intent of the bill is to overturn the Culliton decision.”

A 1930 voters pamphlet contains an argument in favor of the 14^th Amendment on the basis that it was necessary to shift the tax burden from land to other forms of property, such as income from stocks and bonds, by enabling the state to tax them as different classes of property.

In 2023, the state Supreme Court ruled that a state tax on the income derived from the sale of capital gains was legal because the state Legislature called it an “excise tax," which is imposed on the transaction regardless of whether income is derived from it.

The Center Square also obtained the AGO’s Dec. 11 legal memo written by Zalesky and Jensen to Ferguson’s Office regarding the legality of a hypothetical tax on high-income earners he was contemplating, stating “the proposed tax would fall squarely within the type of taxes that our Supreme Court has invalidated under the uniformity and levy limit requirements of article VII, sections 1 and 2, of the Washington Constitution.

“We believe there is a reasonable chance – although far from a sure thing – that the Supreme Court would overrule its prior ‘income is property’ precedent if the issue was directly and necessarily before it,” the memo concludes.