Washington ranchers Wade and Teresa King are fighting more than a wetlands enforcement action—they’re fighting for what they say is a fundamental constitutional right. Facing a $267,540 civil penalty and restoration orders that could cost more than $3.7 million, the Kings argue they should not be forced to defend themselves before an administrative board with no jury. Their case, now awaiting a court decision, could have far-reaching implications for property owners nationwide and test whether agencies can investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate citizens without ever putting their case before a jury of their peers.
They were simply going about the business of their ranch. ‘They’ being the King family of Washington state, who were cleaning out stock water ponds as generations of ranchers have done before them.
In fact, the family has ranched the same land since the 1950s. For Wade and Teresa King, the cattle ranch—and the daily work of stewarding both the land they own and the acreage they lease—is more than a business. It is their family’s legacy. It is the work of a lifetime.
But not according to Washington state government. The state’s Department of Ecology says those same activities damaged protected wetlands and has sought to impose a $267,540 civil penalty and restoration orders that could ultimately cost the family more than $3.7 million.
Put simply, the case could end up taking their generational property, and only because the stock water ponds needed cleaning, as all of them eventually do, and the Kings exercised good stewardship.
In government lingo, no good deed should ever go unpunished.
In pursuing the Kings, the state has waded into all sorts of jurisdictional questions. For one thing, the Kings deny that their stock water ponds are regulated wetlands, and they further say the Department of Ecology has no authority to regulate stock water ponds in the first place. The Kings also argue that Washington law contains exemptions for stock watering similar to those found in the federal Clean Water Act.
Still, for Wade and Teresa King—and for the rest of us—the most consequential fight may not be over stock water ponds at all. Rather, it may be over whether the Kings can defend themselves in court before a panel of their peers. For all Americans, as well as the Kings, the case is in part about whether citizens can be forced to defend themselves before an administrative tribunal without ever receiving a trial by jury.
That constitutional question is now before a Grant County superior court judge following oral arguments on May 21. At stake is whether the state can require the Kings to challenge the allegations before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), a board that cannot convene a jury and has no authority to transfer the case to a court that can.
A decision has not yet been rendered.
A Multigenerational Ranch Under Fire
According to Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) attorneys Oliver Dunford and Allison Daniel, who are representing the Kings for PLF, the family’s ranch has operated across Grant and Douglas counties since the 1950s and encompasses approximately 17,000 acres, including some 13,000 acres leased from the state.
At American Stewards of Liberty’s Land & Liberty Summit this past February, Wade King described the work at the center of the dispute.
“So, real short, our deal is we’re just cleaning out stock ponds just like generations before us,” he told the audience. “We’re just cleaning them out. The state has come after me, the Department of Ecology, and they’re calling it environmental damage.”
King said it was ironic because the state does the same thing and calls it restoration: “But if I did it, it’s damage. It’s just destruction. They get you in an administrative loop and you have to prove your innocence.”
The litigation has been dragging on for five years.
According to case documents, the Washington Department of Ecology issued administrative orders in February 2023 alleging violations of the state’s Water Pollution Control Act, unilaterally imposing the huge civil penalty and restoration costs.
At the summit, King bluntly said politics were involved, as one might imagine with a department called Ecology.
“We have the same exemptions in our state [as the Clean Water Act] for stock watering, but they’re completely ignoring that and are just coming after us just because we’re in a blue state with a blue court system and they’re taking advantage of that,” he said.
He further said the investigation began with satellite surveillance imagery.
“It all started with Google Earth,” he said. “They’re basically looking at your properties through Google Earth and seeing if there’s been any type of change there, and then they’ll come after you.”
While the factual dispute over wetlands remains unresolved, PLF argues that the constitutional issue of a jury trial is just as fundamental. It certainly is more immediate.
Under Washington’s enforcement structure, PLF argued in its original complaint, once Ecology issues its administrative orders, recipients effectively face three choices:
“The Kings face an imminent Hobson’s choice: participating in PCHB proceedings without a jury trial (effectively waiving their constitutional rights); refuse to participate and risk default and immediate enforcement of the $267,540 penalty plus millions of dollars in costs associated with the Grant County Order and the Douglas County Order; or allow the state entry into and upon the Kings’ private property, which would otherwise constitute an unconstitutional warrantless search, and incur massive legal expenses and expert witness fees and costs litigating in the wrong forum.”
The Kings assert a federal constitutional claim.
“The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in suits at common law where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars,” the complaint states. “Although under the current state of the law, the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply directly to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Kings respectfully submit that the time has come for all of the rights afforded under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution to apply in Washington State (and all other states).”
That claim raises a broader constitutional question with national implications, and PLF pointed to U.S. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, who recently suggested that existing precedent refusing incorporation is “something of a relic,” a point PLF cites in support of reconsidering the issue.
Finally, in its April motion for summary judgment before the court, PLF points out that the Washington state constitution declares that the “right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.”
“The term ‘inviolate’ connotes deserving of the highest protection,” the motion states. “Accordingly, Washington courts have long held that, even in close cases, they must err on the side of preserving the right to a jury trial.”
More broadly, PLF warns against concentrating investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative authority within the same administrative structure.
“When government agencies act as prosecutors, judges, and juries, shutting ordinary citizens out of independent courts, the balance of power tips dangerously away from the people,” the foundation states. “The Kings’ case is a reminder that the ancient right to a jury trial isn’t trivial; it’s the last line of defense between an American citizen and a government that answers to no one.”
Stewarding the land
The dispute has also drawn attention from officials within the Trump administration, including agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins, who expressed concern in a December 9 letter to the Washington State Department of Ecology about the case and its potential implications for ranchers and producers.
“It is common knowledge, especially in the West, that access to water is preeminently important in raising cattle,” Rollins wrote. “The creation and maintenance of stock water ponds is one of primary ways ranchers ensure their livestock have access to water.”
For more than 60 years, Rollins wrote, the King Ranch has had farm ponds on the property they own and lease.
“These man-made structures eventually start filling back up with sediment and need to be cleaned out,” she wrote. “However, now the state is claiming farm ponds are wetlands and is attempting to bring the hammer down on a ranch simply for doing what they have always done: steward their land and livestock. Targeting a ranch for actively maintaining a man-made farm pond is not only wrong but impermissible under state and federal law, and the Trump administration will not sit idly by in the face of this injustice.”
Targeted lawfare against American agricultural producers and the weaponization of government agencies is a clear assault on those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people, Rollins concluded.
For now, however, the immediate question remains with the Washington state courts. If the Kings prevail, the ruling could strengthen constitutional protections for property owners facing state administrative enforcement.
If they lose, the case may become another chapter in a growing national debate over whether agencies can investigate citizens, levy massive penalties, effectively take private property, and decide those disputes internally—without ever placing the matter before a jury of their peers.
