The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a preliminary injunction against Washington state officials. This ruling prevents the enforcement of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) against the Union Gospel Mission of Yakima. The court held that the First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine extends beyond the “ministerial exception”. It protects a religious organization’s decision to hire only co-religionists for non-ministerial roles—such as IT technicians or operations assistants—when that decision is based on a sincerely held religious belief. The court found that internal management decisions regarding personnel are essential to a religious institution’s central mission. This decision clarifies that religious nonprofits generally may require all employees to adhere to their code of conduct and beliefs without government interference.
Case Info
-
Case: Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Nick Brown, et al.
-
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 24-7246)
-
Date Filed: January 6, 2026
-
Link: [24-7246.pdf]
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that religious organizations have a constitutional right to hire only individuals who share their religious beliefs for all staff positions, not just clergy. This protection applies even to non-ministerial roles like IT technicians and administrative assistants if the hiring policy rests on a sincerely held religious belief.
Why This Case Matters
This decision addresses a conflict between state anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. The Washington Supreme Court previously narrowed the state’s religious employer exemption to apply only to “ministers,” leaving religious nonprofits vulnerable to lawsuits for hiring co-religionists in support roles. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion restores a broader shield for religious organizations in the western United States. It affirms that the government cannot dictate who a religious group selects to carry out its mission, regardless of the employee’s specific job title.
What did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decide?
The three-judge panel affirmed a district court’s preliminary injunction that stops Washington state officials from enforcing the WLAD against the Union Gospel Mission. The court determined that the Mission is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim under the church autonomy doctrine. Judge Bumatay, writing for the court, stated that the First Amendment forbids government interference with internal church decisions that affect the faith and mission of the church itself. This includes the decision to employ only those who adhere to the organization’s religious tenets. The court emphasized that forcing a religious group to employ individuals who disagree with its principles would undermine its ability to define its own mission.
How does the “church autonomy” doctrine differ from the “ministerial exception“?
The court distinguished the broader “church autonomy doctrine” from the narrower “ministerial exception”.
-
Ministerial Exception: This rule strictly bars the government from interfering in the employment of ministers or clergy. It provides absolute immunity from employment discrimination claims for these roles, regardless of the reason for termination.
-
Church Autonomy for Non-Ministers: The court ruled that this broader doctrine protects hiring decisions for non-ministerial staff, but with specific limits. The protection applies only if the decision is rooted in a sincerely held religious belief. Unlike the ministerial exception, this does not give religious groups “carte blanche” to discriminate on other grounds. The Mission cannot use this doctrine to discriminate based on race or other protected classes unrelated to religious belief.
What were the specific facts regarding Union Gospel Mission?
Union Gospel Mission is a Christian ministry in Yakima, Washington, that provides homeless shelters, addiction recovery, and medical clinics.
-
Hiring Policy: The Mission requires all employees to agree with its Christian statement of faith and abstain from sexual conduct outside of biblical marriage between one man and one woman.
-
Staffing Needs: The organization sought to fill approximately 50 positions, including IT technicians and operations assistants. These roles involve “inward-facing” duties like troubleshooting computers or acquiring supplies.
-
Religious Rationale: The Mission argued that all employees serve a religious function by maintaining a “faith community,” praying for one another, and setting a Christian example. They argued that “personnel is policy” and that hiring non-believers would dilute their message.
What is the status of the Washington Law Against Discrimination?
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and other grounds. While the text of the law exempts non-profit religious organizations, the Washington Supreme Court narrowed this exemption in 2021. That state court ruling limited the exemption solely to “ministers,” exposing religious groups to liability for applying religious standards to support staff. The Ninth Circuit’s decision overrides that state-level interpretation for this specific plaintiff. It holds that the First Amendment prevents the state from enforcing the WLAD in a way that interferes with the Mission’s co-religionist hiring practices.
What happens next?
The preliminary injunction remains in place. This prevents the Washington Attorney General and the Human Rights Commission from penalizing the Union Gospel Mission for its current hiring practices while the case proceeds. The State of Washington may choose to appeal this decision to the full Ninth Circuit en banc or petition the United States Supreme Court for review.
Commentary
The Ninth Circuit’s distinction between the ministerial exception and the broader church autonomy doctrine is a vital clarification for religious liberty jurisprudence. By recognizing that “internal management decisions” regarding personnel are essential to a mission, the court acknowledges that a religious organization is defined not just by its pulpit but by its entire community. The court correctly identified that the government lacks the competence to parse which employees are sufficiently “religious” to warrant constitutional protection. When a secular court attempts to draw lines between “essential” and “non-essential” religious staff, it inevitably entangles itself in theological questions it has no business answering.
The logic that “personnel is policy” resonates strongly in the non-profit sector. A secular environmental organization would likely refuse to hire a spokesperson or even an administrative assistant who actively campaigned against climate change regulations. Similarly, a religious entity maintains its identity through the shared commitment of its staff. If the state forces a mission to hire individuals who fundamentally disagree with its core tenets, the state is effectively rewriting the organization’s identity. This ruling protects the right of association for religious groups in the same way secular groups enjoy the right to hire staff who align with their cause.
It is also prudent that the court limited this protection to “sincerely held religious beliefs.” This prevents the doctrine from becoming a loophole for invidious discrimination based on race or other immutable characteristics that have no basis in doctrine. The requirement for sincerity ensures that the exemption is used as a shield for religious exercise, not a sword for general bias. This strikes a necessary balance between the state’s interest in eradicating discrimination and the constitutional mandate to preserve the independence of religious institutions.
Finally, this decision serves as a check on state courts that attempt to narrow federal constitutional rights through statutory interpretation. The Washington Supreme Court’s attempt to restrict the religious exemption to ministers ignored the practical reality of how religious ministries operate. Ministry often happens in the soup kitchen line or the intake desk, not just the sanctuary. The Ninth Circuit has re-aligned the law with the practical reality that for many organizations, every employee contributes to the spiritual mission.
Sources
-
Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Nick Brown et al., No. 24-7246, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 6 Jan. 2026.
Subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV
Stay informed on the cases that shape your constitutional rights. Like, share, and subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV for breaking news, objective analysis, and access to essential case information.
Disclaimers
AI Disclaimer: This article was assisted by AI.
Legal Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.