- Former Justice Phil Talmadge joined the legal team challenging Washington’s new 9.9% income tax on high earners.
- The lawsuit argues Senate Bill 6346 violates the state constitution by treating income as property requiring uniform taxation.
- A separate legal battle seeks a voter referendum to repeal the tax after state officials blocked it.
(WASHINGTON STATE) — Former Washington State Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge joined the Citizen Action Defense Fund legal team challenging Washington State’s new 9.9% income tax on income over $1 million, the group announced on April 8, 2026.
The challenge targets Senate Bill 6346, which Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law on March 30, 2026. The tax starts in 2029 for the 2028 tax year and is expected to affect about 21,000 filers, generating roughly $3 billion annually.
Citizen Action Defense Fund, led by Executive Director Jackson Maynard, retained Talmadge alongside former Attorney General Rob McKenna. The group argues the new tax violates the Washington State Constitution’s uniformity clause for property taxes.
The case sets up a new test of whether Washington’s highest court will keep or revisit long-standing precedent that treats income as property for state constitutional purposes. It also opens a second front in the political and legal fight over Senate Bill 6346, as a separate case already challenges the law’s protection from a referendum.
At the center of the constitutional argument are two earlier Washington Supreme Court decisions. Challengers cite Culliton v. Chase (1933), where the court ruled income is “property” subject to uniform taxation under Article VII, and Aberdeen Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Chase (1930), which they say prevents graduated rates within the same class.
Opponents say Senate Bill 6346 cannot avoid those rulings by changing how the tax is described. The law taxes “the receipt of Washington taxable income,” language challengers argue cannot be relabeled to evade uniformity.
Maynard described the lawyers assembled for the case as a “legal dream team.” His group’s addition of Talmadge gives the challenge a former justice who previously weighed in against a progressive income tax proposal.
Talmadge, a Democrat, was admitted to practice in 1976. He previously opposed a progressive income tax in his 2010 evaluation of Initiative 1098, which voters rejected.
The new law imposes a 9.9% tax on income over $1 million. Supporters in state government pushed the measure through this year, but the legal attack now underway suggests the tax will likely face extended court scrutiny before the first payments come due.
Citizen Action Defense Fund expects to file its lawsuit within days in superior court. The group may seek a preliminary injunction to halt implementation before 2028 buildup.
That schedule matters because Senate Bill 6346 does not take effect immediately for taxpayers. The tax starts in 2029 for the 2028 tax year, giving both sides time to litigate before the law reaches its collection stage.
The case is likely headed to the Washington Supreme Court in 2027–2028, where the justices could either review the existing precedent or overrule it. That prospect places unusual weight on the early filings, because the dispute goes beyond the wording of one tax bill and reaches the court’s treatment of income under the state constitution.
Talmadge’s involvement also ties the challenge to earlier Washington fights over income taxes. His 2010 opposition to Initiative 1098 and McKenna’s role in litigation against the state’s capital gains tax give the plaintiffs lawyers with records in past tax battles.
McKenna’s earlier work against the capital gains tax provides another connection to Washington’s broader debate over whether taxes tied to income or financial gains can survive under the state constitution. Senate Bill 6346 now becomes the latest vehicle for that debate.
A separate challenge filed by Let’s Go Washington is moving on a different track. That suit was filed Friday against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs after officials rejected a referendum tied to Senate Bill 6346’s “necessity clause.”
That clause says the measure is needed for public peace, health, safety, and state support. Let’s Go Washington argues the designation blocks voters from seeking repeal through a referendum.
The Washington Supreme Court agreed to review that dispute and set a hearing for the end of April 2026. The case does not directly decide whether the tax itself is constitutional, but it could determine whether opponents get a public vote on the law.
Let’s Go Washington founder Brian Heywood called the referendum rejection “mind-boggling.” He said the move blocks voter repeal.
If the court upholds the rejection, Let’s Go Washington plans an initiative that would require over 145,000 signatures by June 10, 2026. That avenue would keep the fight in the political arena even as Citizen Action Defense Fund pursues its constitutional claims in court.
Secretary of State spokesperson Helen Smith defended the rejection. She said the office acted based on state Supreme Court precedent from last November.
Those parallel challenges could create overlapping pressure on lawmakers. One case asks whether the tax itself can stand under Article VII. The other asks whether voters can force a referendum despite the Legislature’s use of the necessity clause.
If the Supreme Court invalidates the clause, the Legislature may need a special session, because the tax funds part of the four-year budget. That possibility gives the litigation budget consequences as well as constitutional ones.
A ruling against the necessity clause would not settle the tax challenge from Talmadge, McKenna and Citizen Action Defense Fund. But it could force lawmakers back into session while a separate court fight over the tax’s legality continues.
The legal attack announced on April 8, 2026 rests on a straightforward argument: Washington cannot impose a non-uniform tax on income if income remains classified as property under the constitution. The plaintiffs’ position depends heavily on the continued force of Culliton and Aberdeen Savings and Loan Ass’n.
The state, by contrast, will be defending a law that lawmakers structured as a tax on “the receipt of Washington taxable income.” Opponents say that phrasing does not change the constitutional problem.
That phrasing will likely receive close scrutiny once the case reaches superior court. If judges treat the tax as one on income, challengers will argue the graduated 9.9% structure conflicts with the constitution’s demand for uniform taxation of property.
The dispute also arrives against a political backdrop shaped by prior statewide votes. Opponents point to earlier voter rejections of income taxes and to Initiative 2111’s repeal, which they say helped clear the way for Senate Bill 6346.
Those prior votes do not decide the constitutional question now before the courts. They do, however, frame the argument from critics who say lawmakers enacted a tax that Washington voters have repeatedly resisted.
Maynard’s decision to add Phil Talmadge and Rob McKenna gives Citizen Action Defense Fund a bipartisan lineup, a point the group has emphasized. Talmadge is a Democrat. McKenna served as attorney general. Together, they give the suit experienced voices likely to draw attention when the case reaches the appellate stage.
For now, the immediate next step is the filing that Citizen Action Defense Fund says will come within days. That filing is expected to launch the court challenge in superior court and could include a request to freeze implementation well before the 2028 tax year approaches.
After that, attention will split between two venues: the expected constitutional challenge over the tax itself and the Washington Supreme Court’s review of the referendum dispute at the end of April 2026. Each case could alter the path of Senate Bill 6346.
One path would leave the tax intact and insulated from a referendum. Another could reopen the measure to voters. A third could force the Washington Supreme Court to decide whether to hold to precedents dating back to 1930 and 1933 or move in a different direction.
The stakes extend beyond the roughly $3 billion annually that the state expects to collect. The cases now forming around Senate Bill 6346 will test whether Washington can sustain a 9.9% tax on income over $1 million under constitutional language and precedent that challengers say already answer the question.
