Johnson v. City of Seattle, (WD WA, Feb. 18, 2026), is a suit by promoters of a worship event held in a Seattle park. According to the court:
Plaintiffs allege that ... a large group of protestors came to the park to agitate, disrupt, and assault Plaintiffs for the views, message, and content of their event.... [S]hortly after the event had begun, event organizers were approached by the police and told to shut down the event because of violent protestors that the police could not control.... Two protestors attacked the event’s stage, ripped down the fabric banners and kicked over equipment, and other protestors exposed body parts, engaged in lewd behavior in front of minor children, threw urine-filled water balloons, sprayed attendees with pepper spray and tear gas, and harassed Plaintiffs with curse words and violent threats....
On the same day, Mayor Harrell issued a press release stating that Plaintiffs’ event was an “Extreme Right-Wing Rally”, and that Plaintiffs were responsible for the violence that had been perpetrated against them.... Plaintiffs allege that they were blamed for deliberately provoking the reaction “by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.”.... Mayor Harrell issued another press release ... which contained statements from the City’s “Christian and Faith Leaders” condemning Plaintiffs for their event and blaming them for the violence perpetrated against them.... According to the City’s faith leaders, Plaintiffs targeted the LGBTQ+ community....
The court refused to grant plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, saying in part:
Here, the dearth of allegations of intended future conduct, threat of future enforcement, or self-censorship, clearly does not satisfy a pre-enforcement injury in fact.
However, the court allowed plaintiffs to continue their lawsuit seeking other relief, including their Establishment Clause claim which defendants had asked the court to dismiss. The court said in part:
... Plaintiffs ... argue that the statements made by Defendant Harrell after the event was shut down are laden with hostility toward religion, and the condemning statements made by other religious sects and cited in the second press release demonstrates Defendants’ preference for other religions.... These statements were made in formal press releases from the “Office of the Mayor.”... Official expressions of hostility directly connected to Plaintiffs and their event, combined with the supporting hostile statements made by City religious leaders that are officially approved by the City, can have the effect of showing that the City is failing its duty of neutrality, invalidating the facial neutrality of an ordinance....
