9th Circuit: Requested Religious Exemptions from Vaccine Mandate Would Have Imposed Undue Hardship

In Williams v. Legacy Health, (9th Cir., May 6, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a hospital system's refusal to grant religious exemptions from its Covid vaccine mandate to Vancouver, Washington hospital employees whose duties put them in close contact with patients or staff. The court upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' Title VII religious discrimination claims.  It concluded that granting the requested religious exemptions would have imposed "undue hardship" on Legacy Health. The court said in part:

At the time it denied Employees’ exemption requests, Legacy forecast an acute strain on its business of providing safe and effective medical care to the public. The COVID-19 Delta variant had just emerged, and Legacy predicted a surge of hospitalizations across its eight locations. In that context, Legacy reasonably sought to ensure that its employees were vaccinated. The statistical evidence available to Legacy revealed that high vaccination rates, while not a panacea, reduced overall transmission risk. Vaccination also proved highly effective at preventing infection in the healthcare setting, where other measures like social distancing were impractical or “impossible,” as one expert explained. By contrast, Legacy’s unrebutted epidemiological expert evidence showed that unvaccinated “frontline workers,” like Employees, faced a unique risk of infection—and that any infections could contribute to “significant outbreaks among patients [and] colleagues.” 

Vital Law reports on the decision.

Released-Time Provider Must Get Equal Treatment with Secular Organizations

 In LifeWise, Inc. v. Everett Public School District, (WD WA, April 24, 2026), LifeWise, an organization that provides off-premise released-time religious instruction to public school students, was granted a preliminary injunction requiring the Everett, Washington School District to grant it treatment equal to that given to secular organizations. The injunction issued by a Washington federal district court requires the district to allow LifeWise to participate in district community resource fairs and display printed flyers in schools to the same extent as permitted for secular organizations. The court also ordered the school to simplify the permission slip procedure for students attending the released time program. Finally, because some parents complained that those attending the released time program were pressuring other students to attend by providing them with materials received during their released time, the school had required students to keep sealed in their backpacks material received during their released-time instruction. A parent who was one of the plaintiffs contended that this prevented her child from being able to read the Bible during free time. The court agreed and ordered that this plaintiff's children be permitted to read LifeWise reading materials during times of the school day when students are allowed to read other non-scholastic materials.

1st Amendment Challenges to State's Foster Care Licensing Policy Move Ahead

In DeGross v. Hunter, (WD WA, April 22, 2026), a Washington federal district court refused to dismiss free speech and free exercise claims against the Washington Department of Children, Youth and Families brought by a Christian couple who object to the Department's policy on sexual orientation and gender identity. The state requires prospective foster parents to agree to support a foster child's sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIE), including using their preferred pronouns and chosen name. The DeGrosses were granted only a limited foster care license because they would not agree to fully implement the state's policy. The court said in part:

The DeGrosses have plausible alleged that Policy § 1520 draws distinctions based on the message the speaker conveys....  Policy § 1520 restricts certain speech by prospective parents on the topic of SOGIE, while requiring speech that aligns with the state’s perspective.... 

In essence, the Department has forced the DeGrosses to choose between forfeiting their freedom of speech to obtain an unrestricted license, or upholding their beliefs surrounding SOGIE, and receiving a less-favorable license subject to certain restrictions.   

The DeGrosses have carried their burden to show that the Department’s enforcement of Policy § 1520 plausibly constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.  Thus, the DeGrosses alleged sufficient facts to show a First Amendment violation unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny....

... [T]he DeGrosses plausibly allege the Department’s policy at issue here puts the DeGrosses in an unfair predicament: they may obtain an unrestricted foster care license but only if they disavow their religious beliefs.... "[S]uch a policy imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny." ...

... “A law is not generally applicable if it ‘invites’ the government to consider the particular reasons for a person’s conduct by providing ‘a mechanism for individualized exemptions.’”... 

... [T]he DeGrosses have carried their burden, at the motion to dismiss stage, to show that § 1520 is neither neutral nor generally applicable.  Thus, the DeGrosses alleged sufficient facts to show a First Amendment violation of freedom of religion unless Defendants can satisfy strict scrutiny.  Based on the limited record before it, the Court is unable to determine at this time whether Defendants can satisfy strict scrutiny.  Thus, the DeGrosses’ freedom of religion claim survives the motion to dismiss.

The court however dismissed plaintiffs' equal protection claim.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Spa's Policy on Transgender Women, With Unusually Controversial Dissent

Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, (9th Cir., March 12, 2026), is the denial of a panel and en banc rehearings to two Korean Spas that lost their 1st Amendment challenges to application of Washington state's anti-discrimination provisions to the spas admission policies. The spas admitted only "biological women", including transgender women who had received gender confirmation surgery. They excluded transgender women who had not completed that surgery. The original 3-judge panel denied a rehearing, but issued an amended majority opinion amending the opinion originally issued on May 29, 2025 (full text of original opinion). The court then denied en banc review.  Three opinions dissenting from the denial of en banc review were filed. Judge VanDyke's dissenting opinion led to an unusual Statement concurred in by 27 Ninth Circuit judges saying:

The American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner or, as Justice O’Connor put it, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”1 It is not a place for vulgar barroom talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have “collectively lost their minds,” or that they are “woke judges[]” “complicit” in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans. That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead dissent ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court. Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.

State Attorney General May Enforce Subpoena Seeking from Archdiocese Evidence of Clergy Sexual Abuse

In State of Washington v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, (WA App, March 2, 2026), a Washington state appellate court allowed enforcement of a subpoena issued by the state Attorney General's Office (AGO) seeking from the Catholic Archdiocese evidence relating to clergy sexual abuse. In issuing the subpoena the Attorney General's Office relied on investigative authority given to it by a provision of the state's Charitable Trust Act. The trial court had quashed the subpoena because the Charitable Trust Act exempts "religious corporations ... operated in good faith as religious organizations" from its provisions. The appeals court, however, held that giving that exemption to religious organizations violates the state constitution's provision barring the granting to any person or corporation privileges or immunities not equally belonging to all citizens or corporations. The court went on to say in part:

Antifavoritism analysis under article I, section 12 subjects legislation to a two-part test.....  First, the court asks whether a challenged law grants a “privilege” or “immunity” for purposes of our state constitution....  If the answer is yes, then the court asks whether there is a “reasonable ground” for granting that privilege or immunity....

The Archdiocese says this case does not involve a ... direct impact on the fundamental right to be free from unwanted bodily interference, because exempting it from the AGO’s statutory subpoena power does not directly condone the invasion of any person’s bodily autonomy,,,,

As the Archdiocese correctly observes, a civil authority in the United States cannot sit in judgment of whether the Archdiocese has conformed to its faith and doctrine.  To the extent, by its subpoena or otherwise, the AGO were to purport to second-guess whether a given action by the Archdiocese was truly “for the use, purpose, benefit and behoof” of the church, the AGO and its use of the subpoena would violate the federal and state constitutional religious protections. ...

At the same time, the subpoena to this point does not implicate a civil authority second-guessing the Archdiocese’s decision-making or good faith, but requires only the production of documents..... The Archdiocese has not pointed to any authority that constitutional religious protections are offended by inquiry into whether criminal or tortious conduct has occurred, including sexual abuse by clergy.  

We perceive in the AGO’s subpoena a scope that, if pursued, would clearly unconstitutionally infringe the Archdiocese’s religious protections, to the extent the AGO seeks to determine whether any given act or expenditure by the Archdiocese was “for the use, purpose, benefit and behoof” of the church.  But we also perceive a scope that clearly does not infringe the Archdiocese’s religious protections, to the extent the AGO seeks evidence relevant to determining that an act occurred that is criminal, tortious, or both, including sexual abuse by clergy.

9th Circuit: Church Autonomy Doctrine Allows Churches to Hire Only Co-Religionists Even for Non-Ministerial Positions

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Brown, (9th Cir., Jan. 6, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Washington's Law Against Discrimination against a Christian ministry that gives hiring preference to co-religionists for non-ministerial positions. The court said in part:

The freedom of religious institutions to establish their own doctrine and faith is so fundamental that they may categorically hire and fire their ministers without regard to anti-discrimination laws—even if the termination is for non-religious reasons.  Simply, the government has no business in policing who spreads the word on behalf of churches, synagogues, mosques, religious organizations, and other similar institutions.  

But the church autonomy doctrine is not so narrowly drawn.  The First Amendment may also shield religious institutions’ hiring of non-ministerial employees when it involves matters of faith and doctrine.  For example, a religious institution may decide that its religious mission is best served by hiring only employees who adhere to and follow its religious beliefs—even for those not acting in ministerial roles. The religious institution may also believe that it can more effectively promote its view of moral and spiritual well-being if its own employees do not lead lives contrary to the institution’s teachings....

But unlike with the ministerial exception, the church autonomy doctrine only protects Union Gospel’s non-ministerial hiring decisions based on religious beliefs.  So Union Gospel cannot discriminate on any other ground.  And our decision is limited to religious organizations like Union Gospel.  We do not consider the scope of the doctrine on other types of entities run by religious institutions, such as businesses or hospitals....

Yakima Herald Republic reports on the decision. 

9th Circuit Upholds Fire Department's Denial of Religious Exemptions from Covid Vaccine Mandate

In Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, (9th Cir., Sept. 2, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by eight firefighters that the Snohomish fire department violated Title VII and Washington state law by refusing to accommodate their requests for religious exemptions from the state's Covid vaccine mandate for all healthcare providers. The court said in part:

SRFR has pointed to several substantial costs of accommodating Plaintiff’s requested vaccine exemption— the health and safety of its own firefighters and the public, the large number of firefighters seeking accommodations, the risk to its operations and the cost of widespread absences, the potential loss of a lucrative contract with DOC, and the risk of additional liability.  SRFR also provided unrebutted medical evidence that showed the inadequacy of Plaintiffs’ proposed accommodation.  All of this amounts to a showing that SRFR could not reasonably have accommodated Plaintiffs without undue hardship in October 2021....

We cannot judge SRFR by the responses taken by other fire departments....  Nor can we judge SRFR with the clarity of hindsight or the benefit of post-pandemic debates over what measured responses frontline employers should have taken.  We must consider the costs faced by SRFR in October 2021, not today.... [A]t the time the Governor issued the Proclamation, “COVID-19 cases were spiking....  The pandemic forced the State of Washington to make decisions quickly and with limited information.  In so doing, SRFR relied on the scientific evidence and COVID data then available and acted in the best interests of the community....

Court Enjoins Newly Mandated Child Abuse Reporting By Priests

In Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, July 18, 2025), a Washington federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Washington's new law requiring priests to report suspected child abuse learned in the Sacrament of Confession. The injunction applies to all priests supervised by the archbishop and bishops who are plaintiffs in the suit. The court said in part:

There is no question that SB 5375 burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion.  In situations where Plaintiffs hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, SB 5375 places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law....

SB 5375 modifies existing law solely to make members of the clergy mandatory reporters with respect to child abuse or neglect....  However, other groups of adults who may learn about child abuse are not required to report.  Parents and caregivers, for example, are not mandatory reporters.  Moreover, the Washington legislature passed Substitute House Bill 1171... exempting attorney higher education employees from mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect as it relates to information gained in the course of providing legal representation to a client”....

Thus, SB 5375 is neither neutral nor generally applicable because it treats religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity....

The state, in removing the privileged communication exception for clergy but expanding it for other professionals, cannot demonstrate the narrow tailoring strict scrutiny requires....

Becket Law issued a press release announcing the decision.

DOJ Intervenes In Challenge To Washington Law Removing Clergy Privilege

The Department of Justice on Monday filed a Complaint in Intervention (full text) in Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 6/23/ 2025) to become a party in a suit by Catholic bishops in Washington state challenging a recently adopted amendment to the state's mandatory child abuse reporting law that requires clergy to report child abuse or neglect even if they learn of it in a confessional. The DOJ's petition alleges in part:

7. SB 5375 directly interferes with the fundamental right of Catholic priests to freelyexercise th eir religion by forcing them to  violate the sanctity and confidentiality of confessionalcommunications. No other mandatory reporter is required to forego his or her fundamental rights under the Constitution in this manner. Furthermore, a second provision of this bill expressly strips “clergy,” and no one else, from relying on any legal privileges, including the confessional privilege, as a defense to reporting child abuse and neglect. All non-religious “supervisors” may continue to rely on applicable state law privileges.

8. In addition, at about the same time SB 5375 w as enacted to deprive Catholic priests oftheir privileges under state law, Governor Ferguson signed another bill into law ... which restored legal privileges to attorneys who are mandatory reporters because they happen to work for colleges and universities, including at law school clinics.

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing their motion to intervene in the lawsuit.

Washington Bishops Sue Challenging Expanded Child Abuse Reporting Law

Last week, the Catholic bishops in Washington state filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a recently adopted amendment to the state's mandatory child abuse reporting law. The amendment requires clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred, even when a priest learns of the abuse or neglect in a confessional. The complaint (full text) in Etienne v. Ferguson, (WD WA, filed 5/29/2025) alleges in part:

1. Consistent with the Roman Catholic Church’s efforts to eradicate the societal scourge of child abuse, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle and the Dioceses of Yakima and Spokane have each adopted and implemented within their respective dioceses policies that go further in the protection of children than the current requirements of Washington law on reporting child abuse and neglect....

3. Yet despite these self-imposed reporting policies—policies that go beyond what Washington law requires—Washington is targeting the Roman Catholic Church in a brazen act of religious discrimination.  Without any basis in law or fact, Washington now puts Roman Catholic priests to an impossible choice: violate 2,000 years of Church teaching and incur automatic excommunication or refuse to comply with Washington law and be subject to imprisonment, fine, and civil liability....  Washington has done so at the same time that it expanded exemptions from mandatory reporting requirements for certain non-clergy.  The object of this law is clear: subject Roman Catholic clergy to dictates of the state. 

4. Putting clergy to the choice between temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation, interfering with the internal governance and discipline of the Catholic Church, and targeting religion for the abrogation of all privileges, is a patent violation of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a violation of Article I, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution.

The Pillar reports on the lawsuit.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Over Religious Exemptions from Washington Antidiscrimination Law

On June 3, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown. In the case, a Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to a religious organization that operates a homeless shelter and thrift stores. The injunction bars the state's attorney general from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) against plaintiff for limiting all its hiring to coreligionists who adhere to the organization's religious tenets and behavior requirements. In 2021 the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the exemption in the WLAD for non-profit religious organizations to apply only to hiring for ministerial positions. (See prior posting.) Washington State Standard reports on the oral arguments.

Evidence of Religious Differences Between Accused and Victim Did Not Require Reversal of Murder Conviction

In State of Washington v. Darraji, (WA App., May 22, 2025), a Washington state appellate court by a 2-1 vote affirmed a second-degree felony murder conviction of defendant, an Iraqi immigrant. Defendant, Yasir, was charged with murdering his former wife, Ibthal.  The court explained:

At trial, the State’s theory was that Ibtihal’s rejection of traditional Iraqi culture and Islamic beliefs, and her embrace of American culture and Christianity, was the source of conflict between the former spouses.  Their fighting and insults escalated until Yasir strangled Ibtihal to death in her car, drove the vehicle to a different location, and lit the car on fire with Ibtihal’s body inside. 

On appeal, Yasir argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by introducing irrelevant and inflammatory evidence of Islamic beliefs to invoke anti-Muslim bias with jurors.

The majority rejected defendant's arguments, saying in part:

The comments and questions by the prosecutor were based on evidence and introduced to show motive.  The State maintained that Yasir believed Ibtihal’s changing behaviors failed to conform to Iraqi culture and Islamic beliefs and were disrespectful, insulting, and reflected poorly on him.... The non-conforming behavior included drinking, smoking, going to bars, dating, driving, working, not covering her hair, and attending a Christian church.  While Yasir’s appeal focuses primarily on evidence of the couples’ religious differences, the State maintained that Ibtihal’s conversion to Christianity and decision to wear her hair uncovered was part of the larger picture....

The foregoing questions and comments were based on relevant evidence and reasonable inferences ... and were introduced to show motive.  An objective observer could not view these questions and comments as an appeal to bias or prejudice against Muslims or persons from Iraq.

Judge Fearing dissented, saying in part:

... [B]ecause of the divisive subject of Islam and stereotypes of Middle Eastern men, the State needed to selectively, thoughtfully, and carefully present its evidence rather than turn the trial into a contest between American culture and Christianity, on the one hand, and Iraqi culture and Islam, on the other hand....  

The State gratuitously painted victim Ibtihal Darraji as Christian and American and defendant Yasir Darraji as Muslim and un-American.  The State even went as far as suggesting Ibtihal was a martyr to Christianity.  With its testimony and arguments to the jury, the State employed the ancient, but common, practice of portraying the victim as “us” and the accused as “them” in order to assure a conviction.  I would reverse and remand for a new trial because Yasir Darraji did not receive a fair trial....    

Washington State Makes Clergy Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse With No Exceptions for Privileged Information

On May 2, Washington state Governor Bob Ferguson signed Senate Bill 5375 (full text) which amends previous law to now require clergy to report child abuse or neglect when they have reasonable cause to believe that it has occurred. The bill deletes the previous exemption for clergy, even when they obtain the information through a privileged communication such as in a confessional. The Catholic diocese of Spokane reacted to the Governor's signing of the bill with a message (full text) that reads in part:

This week, Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law Senate Bill 5375, which seeks to force priests to violate the Seal of Confession if child abuse is revealed within the celebration of the sacrament. In light of this, I again, wish to reiterate my previous statement regarding this matter: 

I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred and will remain that way in the Diocese of Spokane....

The Diocese of Spokane maintains an entire department at the Chancery, the Office of Child and Youth protection, staffed by professional laypeople. We have a zero-tolerance policy regarding child sexual abuse.

OSV News reports on the new law.

UPDATE: In a statement (full text) issued May 4, the Archbishop of Seattle said that any priest who violates the seal of Confession in order to comply with the new law will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

9th Circuit: Church Lacks Standing to Challenge Washington's Health Insurance Coverage Requirements

In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. Kreidler, (9th Cir., March 6, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a church which opposes abortion and some forms of contraception lacks standing to challenge Washington's Reproductive Parity Act which requires health insurance carriers to provide coverage for contraceptives and abortions. A second state statute allows insurance companies to offer employee plans that accommodate a church's religious objections, so long as employees can separately access coverage for such services from the insurer. However, plaintiff church has been unable to find a plan that accommodates its objections. The court said in part: 

Nothing in the challenged law prevents any insurance company ... from offering Plaintiff a health plan that excludes direct coverage for abortion services. Therefore, an insurance company’s independent business decision not to offer such a plan is not traceable to the Parity Act....

Nothing in the record suggests that Plaintiff’s alleged injury would be redressed if we struck down the Parity Act....

Plaintiff contends, in the alternative, that an employer purchasing a no-abortion plan in Washington still “indirectly facilitates” the provision of abortion services to its employees.  Plaintiff relies on but-for reasoning.  As noted above, under the conscientious-objection statute, employees can obtain coverage for abortion services through their insurance carrier, whether or not the employer has a religious objection....  So, Plaintiff’s argument goes, employees receive coverage that they would not have but for the existence of the health plan provided by their employer, even if the employer’s plan does not itself provide that coverage.... We reject this theory as well.  The general disapproval of the actions that others might decide to take does not create standing, even when some tenuous connection may exist between the disapproving plaintiff and the offense-causing action.

Judge Callahan filed a dissenting opinion.  She agreed with plaintiff's "facilitation" argument. She added in part:

Cedar Park also has standing because the Parity Act caused Kaiser Permanente to stop providing a health plan that excludes abortion coverage and the church cannot procure a comparable replacement.

Requirement for Church to Obtain Permit Before Hosting Homeless Encampment Is Upheld

In Miller v. City of Burien, (WD WA, Feb. 3, 2025), a Washington federal district court dismissed a suit brought by a Methodist church challenging the city's requirement that the church apply for and obtain a temporary use permit before it could host a homeless encampment on its property. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that requiring a permit violated its rights under RLUIPA as well as its free speech and free exercise rights under the 1st Amendment. The court said in part:

The parties concede that caring for unhoused individuals is an “exercise of religion” for purposes of RLUIPA. However, the parties dispute whether requiring the Church to apply for a temporary use permit before it is allowed to host a homeless encampment constitutes “imposing a ‘substantial burden’ on religious exercise” under the statute. It is important to note that this is not a denial of application case; rather, the question here is whether the City can require the Church to submit a permit application.... 

Here, the Church did not apply for a permit, the City did not deny the permit application, and the City did not deny the Church’s the right to host a homeless encampment—indeed, the City supported the Church’s endeavor. However, the City did require that the Church fill out a simple two-page application so that the City could ensure that the health and safety of the neighborhood residents, as well as the encampment occupants, was accounted for. Such minimum inconvenience does not constitute a substantial burden on the Church for purposes of RLUIPA. ...

 ... [T]he Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulation impacts speech. As such, its prior restraint facial challenge fails as a matter of law and must be dismissed....

... [Z]oning laws that permit some individualized assessment for variances remain “generally applicable” so long as the laws are motivated by secular purposes and impact equally all landowners seeking the variances. That, of course, is the case here. No landowner—secular or religious—is permitted to host a homeless encampment within a multi-family zone without a permit.... Nor has the Church alleged that Burien’s regulatory scheme is religiously motivated.... Therefore, because the Church has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged regulatory scheme was not neutral and not generally applicable, it has failed to state a free exercise claim under the First Amendment.

9th Circuit: Hindu Out-of-Stater Lacks Standing to Challenge Ban on Caste Discrimination

In Bagal v. Sawant, (9th Cir., Jan. 21, 2025), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a practicing Hindu who lives in North Carolina lacks standing to challenge a Seattle, Washington Anti-Caste Discrimination Ordinance. The court said in part:

Appellant argues that the Ordinance violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment....

Appellant speculates that the Ordinance could be enforced against him on a future visit to Seattle for ordering a vegetarian meal or wearing a religious marker called a Mauli thread on his wrist.  But these activities are not prohibited by the Ordinance, and Appellant fails to demonstrate that engaging in them would subject him to a credible threat of prosecution....

Appellant argues that the Ordinance creates stigma toward the Hindu religion, which amounts to disapproval of Hinduism over other religions and causes Appellant to refrain from certain Hindu practices.... Appellant has offered no plausible connection between his decision to refrain from engaging in certain Hindu practices in North Carolina and a Seattle Ordinance that prohibits none of those activities....

Appellant has also not demonstrated that he has a geographical connection to the Ordinance sufficient for standing for an Establishment Clause claim. 

Homeless Shelter Can Limit Hiring to Coreligionists

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Wash. v. Ferguson, (ED WA, Nov. 1, 2024), a Washington federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to a religious organization that operates a homeless shelter and thrift stores. The injunction bars the state's attorney general from enforcing the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) against plaintiff for limiting all its hiring to coreligionists who adhere to the organization's religious tenets and behavior requirements. In 2021 the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the exemption in the WLAD for non-profit religious organizations to apply only to hiring for ministerial positions. The federal district court here held that the WLAD is subject to strict scrutiny since it is not a neutral, generally applicable law. It treats religious organizations differently than secular employers who are exempt if they have fewer than eight employees. According to the court, a less restrictive way of advancing the state's interest is to exempt all employees of nonprofit religious organizations as Washington had done before the state Supreme Court decision narrowing the interpretation of the WLAD exemption. An ADF press release has additional background.

Defendant Sentenced To 11 Years for Arson Attacks on Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Halls

Last Friday, a Washington federal district court sentenced 52-year-old Mikey Diamond Starrett to 11 years in prison followed by three years of supervised release for setting fire to three separate Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Halls and shooting into another Kingdom Hall. According to a Department of Justice press release, Starett pled guilty to four counts of violating the Church Arson Prevention Act and one count of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington said:

Starrett’s attacks irrevocably destroyed the sense of safety and peace that a house of worship is supposed to provide, and caused severe, permanent harm to the Jehovah’s Witness community in Washington. These were not crimes against buildings, but a series of attacks against a community and a faith.

9th Circuit: Ministry Has Standing to Challenge Washington Antidiscrimination Law

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Ferguson, (9th Cir., Aug. 12, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Christian Ministry has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Washington Law Against Discrimination insofar as it bars plaintiff from requiring all its employees to sign a statement of faith and core values.  The statement requires employees to adhere to Christian lifestyle and behavior, including Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to consider the issue of prudential ripeness and to consider plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

States Lack Standing to Challenge FDA's Rules on Dispensing of Abortion Pill

In State of Washington v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, (9th Cir., July 24, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to permit the state of Idaho (and 6 other states) to intervene in a lawsuit brought by a group of states led by the state of Washington challenging the FDA's restrictions on pharmacies' dispensing of the abortion pill mifepristone. FDA regulations adopted in 2021 allow mifepristone to be dispensed by pharmacies in retail locations or by mail, but only if the pharmacy is specially certified to do so. Washington's lawsuit contends that the certification and documentation requirements are unnecessary.  Idaho, on the other hand, wants the court to order the FDA to go back to earlier requirements that only allowed mifepristone to be dispensed in person by a physician and did not allow it to be obtained directly from pharmacies. The court concluded that because Idaho seeks fundamentally different relief that does Washington, it must establish its own standing in order to intervene. The court concluded that Idaho did not have separate standing, saying in part:

Idaho first alleges that elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement will cause the state economic injury in the form of increased costs to the state’s Medicaid system.  At oral argument, Idaho stated that this is its “strongest basis” for standing.  Even taking Idaho’s highly speculative allegations as true, the complaint does not demonstrate an injury-in-fact because it depends on an attenuated chain of healthcare decisions by independent actors that will have only indirect effects on state revenue....

Idaho next alleges that elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement will harm its sovereign interest in law enforcement by making illegal mifepristone use harder to detect.  This allegation is insufficient to convey standing because nothing in the 2023 REMS impairs Idaho’s sovereign authority to enact or enforce its own laws regulating chemical abortion....

Finally, Idaho alleges that elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement will harm its “quasi-sovereign interest” in maternal health and fetal life.  Idaho cannot sue FDA on this basis because the allegations concern the interests of individual citizens—not the separate interests of the state itself....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]