The bill would add a new section to chapter 4.92 RCW creating a statutory rule that the appropriation of state moneys is the sole duty and prerogative of the Legislature and that the Legislature alone chooses the means to discharge any constitutional or statutory duty. It prohibits courts from ordering declaratory, injunctive, or other judicial remedies that would require the Legislature to make appropriations or payments of state funds above levels in any enacted omnibus budget, to redirect appropriated or nonappropriated moneys, or to make any distribution or redistribution of appropriated or nonappropriated funds. This is a new statutory provision that makes a procedural change limiting the types of judicial relief available against the State: it restricts court-ordered remedies that would compel specific legislative funding actions. It does not create a new crime or change criminal penalties. The text provided does not assign a specific RCW section number, does not define key terms such as "omnibus budget," "state moneys," "redirect," or "nonappropriated moneys," and does not state whether other judicial remedies that do not involve the listed monetary actions remain available. The bill was first read 02/07/25, referred to the Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations, and lists Representatives Dufault and Corry as sponsors.

If enacted, the bill would prevent courts from ordering the state to spend more money than is already in an enacted omnibus budget or to move or reallocate state funds, meaning lawsuits against the state that would require new appropriations or shifting of money are unlikely to produce court-ordered funding remedies. Practically, people or groups suing the state for alleged violations would have less ability to get relief that depends on the legislature changing budgetary decisions, so enforcement that requires new money would likely have to wait for legislative action rather than being resolved through the courts. The Washington State Legislature would gain firmer control over budget outcomes and be insulated from court orders that mandate spending or redistribution, while plaintiffs (individuals, organizations, local governments) and state agencies seeking court-enforced funding changes would face reduced options and increased reliance on the legislative process. The text does not define key terms like "omnibus budget" or "nonappropriated moneys," nor does it make clear which non-monetary remedies courts could still order, so the exact reach and potential loopholes of this restriction are uncertain.