Gary Davenport, a non-union member and state worker, and other state employees sued, contending that the union failed to secure their approval before spending their agency fees on political efforts. A lawsuit was filed against the Washington Education Association by Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire. The Thurston County, Washington Superior Court ruled that the union had to pay $590,375 in fines for intentionally violating the Washington statute. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that section 760 of the Washington Fair Campaign Practices Act had violated the First Amendment of the Constitution by placing the speech of union members as more valuable than teachers. However, the case was then appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the union stating that the law was unconstitutional because it placed too large of an administrative burden on the union. Therefore, non-union members could not prevent the union from using their money for political campaign purposes. In 2006, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral argument was held on January 10, 2007 and the Court reached a decision on June 14, 2007. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the decision for a unanimous Court, and overturned the previous Washington Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Scalia outlined two reasons why the Court believed that the Washington statute was constitutional:  In a concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with all aspects of Justice Scalia's opinion except for the respondent's arguments that had not been raised in lower courts. This criticism is one of procedure and not content. Justice Breyer believed that the lower courts should have addressed these arguments before they were heard by the Supreme Court. The "Davenport" ruling was moot the moment it was issued, for the Washington state legislature had, before the ruling was handed down, changed the law to make it far easier for unions to comply with its provisions. Nonetheless, legal scholars have been highly critical of the Supreme Court's ruling in "Davenport." As one legal scholar (who is highly critical of the agency fee), has said, "Correctly understood, this decision promises little and delivers even less because it fails to deal decisively and comprehensively with the issues that both earlier private sector and public sector union dues disputes illuminated but failed to settle." Other legal scholars have criticized Justice Scalia's judicial reasoning in "Davenport," concluding that he should have ruled solely on First Amendment grounds and overturned the agency fee law entirely.