Senate Bill 5599 was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by then-Governor Jay Inslee (D) in April 2023.
Supporters say it is necessary to help get LGBTQ-plus and pregnant youth off the streets and to ensure they do not forgo shelters to avoid being found, relocated, or sent to places that do not agree with their lifestyle choices.
"If a young person is alienated from their parents, runs away, and goes to a shelter, we want them in a shelter," said Inslee at the bill signing. "We don't want them living under a bridge. We don't want them being trafficked by a predator... This is a law that says if a child goes to a shelter, we will provide them a roof over their head; we will try to find a way to reconcile them with their parents if humanly possible."
Critics of the law do not see it that way. Some argue it is designed to keep parents in the dark.
"Think about the irony of this," Attorney Gen. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) recently told the "Washington Watch" program. "They claim that parents need to have an opportunity to transition their children. But if a parent does not want to transition their children, they're encouraging the children to go without their parents, so they can be transitioned in secret."
"I think that's so disgusting," he said.
No other state has a direct equivalent to Washington's SB 5599, which specifically allows licensed youth shelters to limit parental notification in certain cases involving protected healthcare like gender-affirming or reproductive services when "safety concerns" are present.
However, states like California, Oregon, Colorado, and Illinois have similar elements through broader minor consent and confidentiality laws, as well as protections for LGBTQ-plus youth in shelters or state-funded programs. Most focus on minor consent for specific medical services or general youth shelter confidentiality, but they do not combine both in the same way SB 5599 does.
The case, International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, reaches the high court after the Ninth Circuit ruled the parents could not sue because their alleged injuries were self-imposed. A win for the parents would reportedly clear the way for a direct constitutional fight over the laws themselves.
