A former King County public defender and tenant attorney with the Legal Action Center, Noman brings significant legal and public service experience to Pacifica. As a tenant attorney Noman represented low-income people facing evictions or subsidy terminations, and gained experience with lease negotiations, landlord tenant laws, and working with different entities such as public housing authorities and nonprofits. In her five years as a public defender, she represented hundreds of clients in a variety of cases, including arguing two misdemeanor appeals in King County Superior Court. Immediately prior to joining Pacifica, Noman worked as counsel for a technology startup company.

“We are excited to have Alice on Pacifica’s Real Estate team,” said Practice Group Leader John De Lanoy. “She is an accomplished attorney whose significant experience and public service mindset make her a great asset to our clients and to the firm.”

Noman earned her J.D. from Seattle University School of Law, where she received a Presidential Law Scholarship and was Content Development Editor for the Seattle Journal of Social Justice. During law school, Noman served through the United Nations as a clerk in the Trial Chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Noman earned her B.A. in Law, Societies, and Justice from the University of Washington.

Click here for a PDF of this news announcement.

Pacifica’s Summer Associate program is central to the firm’s commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal profession. Our program focuses on recruiting and providing opportunities to law students from communities and backgrounds historically underrepresented in the legal profession. Summer associates work in our office in Seattle and are exposed to a broad range of meaningful work and educational experiences.

“It is a pleasure to work with these aspiring legal professionals and to help shape their understanding of what it means to practice law while also serving the community,” said Pacifica Managing Partner Denise Stiffarm. “All of us at Pacifica value the opportunity to learn about their unique life experiences, and to gain their fresh perspectives on our work and on the wider legal profession.”

LeAnn Campbell is a rising third-year law (3L) student at University of Florida Levin College of Law, where she was a fellow of the UF Law Program on Children and Families. Prior to pursuing her J.D., LeAnn earned her B.A. in Education Sciences with an emphasis on disabilities in society, and also worked for 12 years as a paralegal in education law. During her time with Pacifica, LeAnn worked closely with our School Districts Practice Group, furthering her exposure to school law. In the fall, she will join Seattle Public Schools for a Semester in Practice externship.

Stefania Kristjansson is a rising second-year law (2L) student at University of Washington School of Law, and a 2025 Gregoire Fellow. Gregoire Fellows spend the summers after their first year of law school working at both a Seattle-area law firm and either a Seattle-based corporation or government agency. Stefania is spending the first part of her summer with Pacifica, and will work for the Washington State Attorney General’s Office during the second half of her fellowship.

Emily Morado is a rising 2L student at Seattle University School of Law and a fellow of the Legal Employers Advancing Diversity Program (LEAD-WA), which provides internship opportunities to law students from communities that are traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession. Emily earned her B.A. from University of Washington. Before law school, she worked for Geeking Out Kids of Color, a Seattle-based nonprofit focused on providing tech education to BIPOC youth.

Sulley Schuster is also a rising 2L student at Seattle University School of Law, where she was a first-year fellow of the Access to Justice Institute, which equips students for careers advancing social justice. Sulley earned her B.S. from University of Oregon, and has worked previously for companies engaged in environmental and social justice issues.

The application window for the 2026 Pacifica Law Group Summer Associate program will open in early December, 2025. Follow Pacifica on LinkedIn to stay up to date on our Summer Associate program opportunities.

Collectively, the three lawsuits involved 15 former state employees, a majority of whom requested religious exemptions and accommodations from then-Governor Jay Inslee’s emergency proclamation requiring healthcare workers, most state employees, and educational workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The complaints alleged that the denials of the plaintiffs’ requests for exemptions and accommodations violated various federal and state constitutional provisions, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).

In dismissing the lawsuit against the AGO and several of its leaders—including former Attorney General (and now Governor) Bob Ferguson—Chief District Judge David G. Estudillo agreed with the defendants that the AGO could not be sued for constitutional violations under Section 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of rights) of Title 42 of the United States Code (42 U.S.C. § 1983), because the law only allows for civil actions against individual state government officials and employees. Chief Judge Estudillo also held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects state and local officials from liability unless they violated clearly established constitutional rights. The case is Hanson v. Ferguson, No. 3:24-cv-05989-DGE (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2025).

In the lawsuit against the DFI, four former agency employees alleged religious discrimination under Title VII and WLAD. In granting DFI’s motion for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly held that the employees failed to assert bona fide religious beliefs as the basis for their objections to the COVID-19 vaccines. Instead, the employees refused vaccination due to their concerns about the vaccines’ safety or efficacy, their belief in their own “natural immunity,” and other secular objections. The case is Fisher v. Department of Financial Institutions, No. C22-5991 TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 2, 2023).

In the lawsuit against DSHS, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pennell held that the plaintiff had filed her lawsuit after the statute of limitations had passed. The case is Dohrman v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services, No. 2:24-CV-00359-RLP (E.D. Wash. May 21, 2025).

The Pacifica litigation teams representing the State agencies included: Zach Pekelis, Erica Coray, and Luther Reed-Caulkins for the AGO; Ian Rogers and Shweta Jayawardhan for the DFI; and Anita Khandelwal and Christopher Sanders for DSHS.

These three latest wins continue Pacifica’s track record of success in defending state and local governments against legal challenges to emergency public health measures adopted to save lives during the COVID-19 pandemic—including vaccination requirements. In over 50 such cases, no challenger has won any form of relief against Pacifica’s clients. Earlier this year, in one of the highest-profile cases, Pacifica helped Washington State University beat a COVID-19 vaccine lawsuit brought by its former head football coach, Nick Rolovich.

Please follow the below links to read the decisions:

Hanson v. Ferguson

Fisher v. Department of Financial Institutions

Dohrman v. Washington Department of Social and Health Services

Pacifica’s Washington clients include King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, and the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, Port of Seattle, and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). The coalition also includes cities, counties, and other local governments in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The agencies named in the lawsuit as defendants include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration.

The preliminary injunction prohibits those federal agencies from conditioning transportation and homelessness funds on these local governments’ agreement to adhere to the Trump administration’s policies to eliminate all forms of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, help with the administration’s aggressive and lawless immigration enforcement, target and punish transgender people, and cut off information about lawful abortions.

In granting the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein ruled that Pacifica’s clients had shown that they are likely to succeed in demonstrating that the new funding conditions are unlawful. She agreed with Pacifica’s clients that “in attempting to condition disbursement of funds in part on grounds not authorized by Congress, but rather on Executive Branch policy,” the federal agencies likely “are acting in violation of the Separation of Powers principle” and in excess of their authority conferred by Congress. She also ruled that the funding conditions likely “must be set aside as ‘arbitrary’ and ‘capricious’” under the Administrative Procedure Act. She explained, the agencies “failed to demonstrate that the new funding conditions were the result of ‘reasoned decisionmaking,’ let alone have been ‘reasonably explained.’”

Judge Rothstein also found that Pacifica’s clients demonstrated that, absent a preliminary injunction, they would suffer irreparable harm due to the loss—or risk of losing—federal funds appropriated by Congress. “Adequate financial compensation for hundreds of shelter-unstable families losing access to housing does not exist; the same must be said of the incalculable effects of forcing unforeseen reductions in transportation spending,” Judge Rothstein wrote. “Homeless assistance and transit grants are essential tools in addressing these urgent community needs. Congress has consistently affirmed their importance by repeatedly authorizing these grants, underscoring the federal government’s vital role in supporting local governments as they confront the challenges of homelessness and maintenance of critical transportation infrastructure.”

The federal funds came under threat earlier this spring when federal agencies placed new conditions on grants in an effort to coerce local governments into cooperating with President Trump’s political agenda.

Pacifica initially filed suit on May 2, 2025 on behalf of eight cities and counties in five states, but after Judge Rothstein granted a temporary restraining order on May 7, 23 additional government entities representing communities in seven more states joined the plaintiff coalition. The financial implications of the lawsuit also increased exponentially, from hundreds of millions to an estimated $4 billion in federal funds.

The Pacifica litigation team includes Paul Lawrence, Jamie Lisagor, Sarah Washburn, Meha Goyal, Galen Knowles, and Luther Reed-Caulkins, and legal assistant Gabby DeGregorio.

Click here to read the order granting preliminary injunction.

Chapman also has significant experience in privacy and security matters, and has defended public, private, and non-profit clients in complex class actions on a range of legal issues, including cases involving consumer privacy, biometric data, and cybersecurity. In addition to her litigation work, Chapman counsels clients on the complex patchwork of federal, state, and local laws governing data privacy and security, and on emerging laws and regulations related to artificial intelligence, machine learning, and automated decision making.

This is Chapman’s second engagement with Pacifica—she also worked for the firm as a summer associate during law school.

Most recently, she worked for Perkins Coie LLP in Seattle, where she represented clients—including some of the world’s leading technology companies—in a variety of privacy-related matters, including cases brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), and a host of other data breach and cybersecurity statutes. Chapman has also litigated cases involving online speech, and has represented digital platforms in matters arising under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment.

“We are excited to welcome Ellie back to Pacifica and to further strengthen our Litigation Practice Group,” said firm Managing Partner Denise Stiffarm. “She is a talented attorney whose knowledge, experience, and focus on emerging areas of the law add significant value to our firm and to the work we do for our clients.”

Born and raised in Seattle, Chapman earned her J.D. from University of Virginia School of Law, and her B.A. from Dartmouth College.

Click here to download a PDF of this news announcement.

While at HUD, Perrigo served as the Associate Regional Counsel for Housing Finance and Programs in Seattle, where she led a team of real estate attorneys who worked on public housing repositioning, asset management transactions, 202 capital advance grants, and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) closings. In that role, she also advised on HUD housing programs, community development grants, HUD’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, and compliance with federal regulations. She was also the lead attorney to the Alaska and Northwest Offices of Native American Programs.

“We are excited to add Kyra to our team,” said Public Law and Finance Practice Group Leader Stacey Crawshaw-Lewis. “Our affordable housing practice is at the core of our firm’s commitment to serving Pacific Northwest communities, and Kyra’s significant experience and passion for housing makes her a tremendous asset to our clients as they work to improve livability in the region.”

Perrigo developed her interest in affordable housing during her time in AmeriCorps, which included working with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity and with the King County Housing Authority. Perrigo earned her J.D. from University of Wisconsin Law School, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the Wisconsin International Law Journal, and earned her B.A. from Macalester College.

Perrigo is one of four attorneys who have recently joined Pacifica following federal government service. Sarah Du previously worked as a trial attorney in at the U.S. Department of Justice, Galen Knowles worked as an attorney for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Craig Peters worked as a neutral staff attorney with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights.

Click here for a PDF of this news release.

Knowles also previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable Morgan Christen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

“We are delighted to add Galen to our litigation team,” said Pacifica Litigation Practice Group Leader Jessica Skelton. “His experience working for the CFPB and clerking in the Ninth Circuit makes him an asset to our government clients and appellate practice, and we appreciate his demonstrated passion for public service.”

Born and raised in Pend Oreille County in northeast Washington, Knowles developed an interest in government while attending Eastern Washington University, where he earned a B.A. in Government and a Master of Public Administration degree. He went on to graduate from Washington University School of Law. During law school, Knowles served as Chief Articles Editor for the Washington University Law Review, and taught constitutional law at a public high school in St. Louis, Missouri.

Knowles is one of three attorneys who have recently joined Pacifica following federal government service. Litigation attorney Sarah Du previously worked as a trial attorney in at the U.S. Department of Justice, and School Districts attorney Craig Peters worked as a neutral staff attorney with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

Please click here for a PDF of this news announcement.

The federal funds came under threat earlier this spring when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)—through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—placed new conditions on federal grants in an effort to coerce cities and counties into cooperating with President Trump’s numerous executive orders on these issues.

The conditions threatened $300 million to serve unhoused residents; they also threatened more than $446 million in FTA grants for transit services in King County.

In a complaint filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Pacifica argued that the funding conditions imposed by HUD, DOT, and FTA are unconstitutional because they undermine powers granted to Congress and those retained by the states.

By seeking to impose the conditions on federal grant programs established by Congress, the agencies are attempting “to coerce grant recipients that rely on federal funds into implementing President Trump’s policy agenda, and direct them to adopt his legal positions contrary to settled law,” the complaint argues. “By unilaterally imposing funding conditions Congress has not authorized and that even Congress could not constitutionally enact, Defendants usurp Congress’s power of the purse. These conditions bear little or no connection to the purposes of the grant programs Congress established. They also contravene bedrock separation of powers principles and violate numerous other constitutional and statutory protections, including (among others) the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, and the Fifth Amendment’s void-for-vagueness doctrine, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).”

In her order granting the TRO motion, U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein held that Pacifica’s clients had shown “a likelihood that each of the conditions at issue violates the Separation of Powers doctrine by imposing on Plaintiffs certain conditions that were not approved by Congress and are not closely related to the purposes of the grants and the programs they fund, nor do the conditions serve the purpose of making the administration of the grants more efficient and effective.” The court also found that, without the TRO, Plaintiffs would suffer “patently irreparable and acute” harm, including “impacts on the vulnerable populations that Plaintiffs serve.”

The Pacifica litigation team includes Paul Lawrence, Jamie Lisagor, Sarah Washburn, Meha Goyal, and Luther Reed-Caulkins, with assistance from Gabby DeGregorio.

Click here to read the full complaint.

Click here to read the TRO.

Related stories:

Pacifica Represents WA Healthcare Orgs in Opposing President’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

Pacifica Stands with 500 Law Firms and Legal Depts. as Amici in Support of Perkins Coie

Pacifica submitted the brief on behalf of the Washington State Hospital Association (WSHA) and the Washington State Medical Association (WSMA), organizations that collectively represent 114 hospitals, and 13,000 physicians, surgeons, and physician assistants in the state. A Pacifica litigation team of Paul Lawrence, Sarah Mack, Meha Goyal, and Clare Riva represented the WSHA and WSMA in filing the brief, which urges the Court to uphold a U.S. District Court’s earlier injunction preventing President Trump’s Order from taking effect.

If Trump’s Order is allowed to go into effect, the brief notes, it would reduce funding and increase costs for the State and for healthcare providers, while also burdening hospitals and healthcare providers by asking them to care for greater numbers of severely ill patients. Removing birthright citizenship would create “a class of [noncitizen] children no longer eligible” for federally subsidized healthcare coverage, which would shift the entire financial burden to the State and threaten the health of the State’s communities. The Order would also “simultaneously force [healthcare] providers to incur increased administrative costs while losing critical federal funding.”

In addition, the Order would create more barriers to accessing preventative and timely healthcare for noncitizen immigrants, leading to poor healthcare outcomes—particularly for babies and pregnant women—that further burden hospitals and healthcare professionals, and increase costs for hospitals and medical facilities.

“By undermining the essential work of doctors, medical providers, and hospitals, [the Order] jeopardizes the well-being of patients and the ability of healthcare professionals to carry out their duties in accordance with established standards of care,” the brief argues. “The harm to public health and the erosion of the foundational principles of medical practice are both profound and irreparable.”

Click here to read the amicus brief in full.