Gov. Bob Ferguson’s appointment of Theo Angelis to the Washington Supreme Court is being presented as a merit-based selection of a polished appellate lawyer. But critics are already crying foul over Ferguson’s choice: a lawyer with no judicial experience, deep ties to his own professional circle, and a history of donating to a long list of powerful Democratic figures whose political interests have intersected with some of the most contentious legal fights in Washington.
Angelis, a partner at Preston Gates & Ellis, has never served as a judge. He has never run a courtroom, never built a judicial record, and never been tested from the bench. Yet Ferguson handed him a seat on the state’s highest court anyway.
That alone invites scrutiny. But Angelis is not some outsider chosen purely on résumé and intellect. He previously worked with Ferguson for years at the firm, tying the governor directly to the man he has now elevated to one of the most powerful legal offices in the state.
Then there is the money.
Campaign finance records show Angelis has donated to a network of prominent Democratic officials in Washington. Those recipients include Gov. Bob Ferguson himself, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, former Gov. Christine Gregoire, former King County Executive Dow Constantine, former Seattle City Council President Lorena González, state Sen. Manka Dhingra, and state Sen. Jamie Pedersen.
I wonder why bob chose a guy who's never served as a judge to be on the Supreme Court? I'm sure it had nothing to do with the unconstitutional income tax or the campaign donations given to Bob. Also donated to Jaimie Petersen and Nick Brown @thehoffather @BrandiKruse… https://t.co/rUV6OdBE04 pic.twitter.com/M5mCYicf2c
— DOGE WA (@Wake_upWA) March 11, 2026
Pedersen’s name stands out for another reason. The Seattle Democrat was the lead on legislation creating Washington’s controversial capital gains tax and income tax — policies opponents have argued are unconstitutional and are likely to be challenged before the court.
That raises an obvious question critics are already asking: was Angelis appointed because he was the most qualified candidate, or because he was a politically reliable choice within an already well-connected legal and political network who would rubber stamp Ferguson’s agenda?
Ferguson’s decision looks less like a neutral appointment and more like a politically comfortable one: a lawyer from the governor’s own professional orbit, financially connected to many of the same Democratic power brokers who shape policy in Olympia.
Ferguson, however, framed the appointment in very different terms. Speaking at the Temple of Justice in Olympia, he praised Angelis as “a very talented, accomplished lawyer” who is also “humble, kind and generous.”
Ferguson highlighted Angelis’ academic background, which includes degrees from Claremont McKenna College, the London School of Economics, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. Angelis also clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and has spent much of his career handling complex litigation and appeals.
Ferguson noted that Angelis has handled “dozens and dozens and dozens of appeals,” describing him as a gifted lawyer who works extremely hard and cares deeply about the people of Washington.
Angelis, for his part, praised the Washington Supreme Court’s reputation and pledged to uphold it.
“This court is deeply respected around this country and even abroad,” Angelis said. “I will work hard every day, I pledge, to be worthy of your example and the great reputation this court has.”
Angelis will replace Justice Barbara Madsen, who is retiring April 3. Because he was appointed to fill a vacancy, Angelis must run in the November general election to complete the remainder of Madsen’s term, which expires in January 2029.
With multiple justices leaving the court this year, the composition of Washington’s highest court is shifting rapidly. Ferguson’s appointments could shape the direction of the court for years to come. Plus, by appointing them to fill terms, the justices can now run as incumbents in what is expected to be a very contentious election.
The central issue is not simply Angelis’ résumé, but the political network that helped place him on the bench in the first place.
