Retired First Responders Sue State Over Pension Fund Transfer

Retired police officers and firefighters in Washington are suing the state over a new law that would allow lawmakers to use nearly $900 million from a pension fund to help address state budget shortfalls. The lawsuit was filed by members of the Law Enforcement Officers’ and Fire Fighters’ Retirement System Plan 1 (LEOFF-1) pension program, which covers certain retired law enforcement officers and firefighters. The plaintiffs argue that the state’s plan would leave their pension fund vulnerable and violates state and federal constitutional protections. The legislation, approved during the 2026 legislative session, would dissolve the LEOFF-1 fund at the end of June 2029 and later reinstate it in a different form. Supporters said the fund is overfunded and that enough money would remain to cover benefits for the remaining members. The money would be used to repay spending from the state’s rainy-day fund, which lawmakers tapped to help fill an estimated $2 billion budget gap. The Democrat-backed measure narrowly passed the Legislature, with several Democrats joining Republicans in opposition. Proponents maintain the move is legal and that pensions remain guaranteed. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Timm Ormsby, D-Spokane, said he doesn’t believe the law “runs afoul of any court precedent,” after consultation with outside legal experts focused on pensions during the legislative process. “Whatever pension those firefighters and law enforcement signed when they came into service, those benefits are guaranteed,” Ormsby said, adding that the redirected surplus funding will be used for the benefit of all Washingtonians. Opponents argue that using pension money for other state expenses could threaten benefits promised to retired first responders and raise legal concerns under state and federal law. They also say the move could create federal tax issues and potentially put the pension system’s tax-exempt status at risk. Local legislator Hunter Abell, R-Inchelium, said, “I support this lawsuit. Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 2034 allowed the Legislature to raid the LEOFF 1 pension plan for our law enforcement officers and firefighters to the tune of billions of dollars.” He added, “The bill enables the Legislature to continue its pattern of irresponsible overspending and ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ in order to meet its shortterm needs. Pension funds should be used for pension purposes, and the underlying bill provides the majority a blank check to spend these funds on whatever they want. I hope the people of Washington are paying attention. It is a bad policy, legally questionable, and I hope the courts put a stop to it.” Legislator Andrew Engell, R-Colville, agreed, stating, “Not only is [Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 2034] highly offensive to retired law enforcement and firefighters for the state to raid billions of dollars from their pension fund, but it is also a bad way to fund the government. When we take billions of dollars in one-time funds and use it to increase general fund expenditures, it practically guarantees that we will have a big hole in our next budget.” Attorneys representing the retirees say the money was legally established for the benefit of law enforcement officers and firefighters, not for general state spending. They argue redirecting the funds would undermine the security of retirees who earned the benefits through public service. Former King County Sheriff Dave Reichert, a LEOFF-1 member and secretary of the fund, has also criticized the move. Reichert said retired officers and firefighters believe the state is using money set aside for their benefits to cover unrelated budget priorities. According to Reichert, approximately 5,500 LEOFF-1 members remain, and that number continues to decline each year as retirees pass away. He said the dispute has caused stress among members worried about the future of their medical and pension benefits. The lawsuit names the office of Attorney General Nick Brown and the Department of Retirement Systems as defendants. Both agencies have declined to discuss the case in detail while litigation is pending