On February 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of Washington issued its opinion in The Housing Authority of the County of King v. Andre Knight. The Court unanimously held that the plain language of § 9058(c) demonstrated Congress’s intent to limit the 30-day notice to evictions for failure to pay rent. This is a significant win for landlords in Washington State and means that, with limited exception, landlords statewide can again begin serving 3-day notices, 10-day notices, and notices with periods shorter than 30-days for eviction cases which do not involve a tenant’s failure to pay rent.
Main Arguments and Conclusions
In reaching this holding, the Court largely adopted arguments made by KCHA (represented by Montgomery Purdue PLLC) in its briefing and during oral argument, which can be viewed here.
1. § 9058(c) Should be Read as a Whole
The Court affirmed the different sections of § 9058(c) must be read together and be construed as a whole. This means that subsection (c)(1) must be read in conjunction with subsection (c)(2), which refers back to subsection (b)(1)’s limitation to nonpayment of rent. By reading the sections of the statute together, the Court concluded application of the 30-day requirement in § 9058(c) should be limited to non-payment evictions only.
2. The Purpose of the CARES Act is to Provide Economic Support to Tenants
The Court held that the CARES Act was intended primarily to provide economic support to tenants during an emergency situation, not broad eviction reform in all states across the country. For this reason, the Court concluded Congress intended the CARES Act notice requirement to apply only to notices for non-payment.
3. The Clear Statement Rule Supports a Narrow Interpretation of § 9058(c)
When courts interpret application of a federal statute, various cannons of judicial interpretation are applied. Once such cannon is the ‘clear statement federalism’ cannon, which requires Congress to be ‘unmistakably clear’ when Congress legislates in areas of the law traditionally reserved for the States. In Knight, the tenant argued the clear statement rule was inapplicable because the CARES Act used broad language and contained no exceptions. The Court disagreed.
The Court explained that accepting the tenant’s argument would alter every state’s existing eviction laws and would impose a permanent federal notice requirement for all types of evictions. The Court disagreed that this was Congress’s intent given the lack of unmistakably clear language. Rather, the Court held that when applying the clear statement rule, a narrow interpretation of the CARES Act required the Court rule the 30-day requirement applies only to evictions based on non-payment of rent.
What this Means for Landlords in Washington State
The Court’s ruling in Knight is a big win for Washington landlords. Washington landlords can once again (with limited exception), again use 3-day, 10-day, and other notices available under State law to terminate a tenant’s tenancy. It should be noted, however, that notice issuance remains a complicated process in Washington, and local laws and local practices may impact notice timelines and requirements.
Case Background
To learn more about the background of this case, please refer to our other two blog posts on this matter:
1) KCHA v. Knight
2) Case Update on KCHA v. Knight – Where Does this Case Currently Stand?
Landlords seeking legal help with the eviction process should contact Briani I. Irani or one of Montgomery Purdue’s other eviction attorneys.