Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—9th Cir.: Preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of WLAD against religious organization that hires co-religionists affirmed, (Jan 7, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“Simply, the government has no business in policing who spreads the word on behalf of churches, synagogues, mosques, religious organizations, and other similar institutions.”

Affirming a preliminary injunction enjoining the state of Washington from enforcing WLAD against Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, a private, nonprofit religious organization, the Ninth Circuit found it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that enforcing the state anti-discrimination law against it for hiring only co-religionists violates the church autonomy doctrine and the remaining preliminary injunction factors easily favor Union Gospel. “If a religious organization’s hiring of co-religionists for non-ministerial positions rests on its sincerely held religious beliefs,” the court stated, “then the church autonomy doctrine forbids government interference with that hiring decision.” The court stressed that its decision was limited to religious organizations like Union Gospel (Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown, No. 24-7246 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026 vacated June 18, 2026, en banc review granted)).

Union Gospel, whose declared mission is to “spread the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ,” provides “Christ[-]centered rescue, recovery and restoration to men, women and children in need.” It operates a homeless shelter, faith-based recovery programs, health clinics, and meal services and encourages everyone it helps to “develop a relationship with Jesus Christ.” Because of its religious purpose, it requires its employees to agree with and live out its Christian beliefs and practices, including “abstaining from any sexual conduct outside of biblical marriage between one man and one woman.” Upon receiving an employment offer, applicants must sign and agree to comply with Union Gospel’s statement of faith, core values, job duties, and requirements.

Pre-enforcement action. In 2023, it anticipated needing to fill more than 50 positions, including for an IT technician and an operations assistant, which it did not consider to be ministerial positions. In March 2023, it brought a pre-enforcement action against the state of Washington in which it sought a declaratory judgment that WLAD violated its First Amendment rights to, among other things, hire only co-religionists for non-ministerial positions. It also sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing WLAD against it.

Prior proceedings. After the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, the Ninth Circuit found Union Gospel’s claims satisfied Article III standing and remanded. The district court then entered a preliminary injunction, enjoining the state from enforcing WLAD against Union Gospel for preferring and hiring only co-religionists for its non-ministerial positions. The state timely appealed.

Justiciability. As an initial matter, the Ninth Circuit rejected the state’s contention that Union Gospel lacked standing to obtain a preliminary injunction because, after the case was remanded to the district court but before the entry of the preliminary injunction, the state had expressly disclaimed enforcement of WLAD against Union Gospel for its hiring of the IT tech and the operations assistant. But this disavowal, the appeals court pointed out, only covered two positions and the state has refused to disavow enforcing WLAD against Union Gospel for the hiring of other non-ministerial positions. Because the threat of state enforcement of WLAD for many non-ministerial positions still exists, Union Gospel’s requested relief could still be granted and the case was not moot.

Likelihood of success on the merits. Turning to the merits of the preliminary injunction, the court noted that whether the church autonomy doctrine permits a religious institution to favor co-religionists in its hiring of non-ministerial employees is largely a question of first impression. That, said the court, is likely because “Congress has long exempted religious employers from federal employment laws that would otherwise interfere with their ability ‘to define and carry out their religious missions’ by imposing ‘potential liability’ for hiring practices that favor co-religionists.” Although the WLAD contains a similar exemption for religious employers as federal law, the Washington Supreme Court narrowly limited that exemption to ministers to avoid what it concluded would be a conflict with the state’s constitution.

Church autonomy doctrine. Pursuant to the church autonomy doctrine, which is established by the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, religious institutions, the court explained, have “the right... ‘to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’” Today, the court observed, the doctrine is most often invoked in the employment context. Moreover, under the ministerial exception, which applies whenever an employee performs “‘vital religious duties’ at the core of the organization’s mission,” religious institutions can select or terminate their ministers regardless of any federal or state employment laws.

Pointing out that the church autonomy doctrine is broader than the ministerial exception, the court explained that while the ministerial exception protects a religious organization’s narrow right to select its ministers, the church autonomy doctrine more generally prohibits “government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” Thus, said the court, the First Amendment forbids government intrusion into the “internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission.”

Internal management decisions. And these internal management decisions, the court stated, can include a religious organization’s policy of hiring co-religionists for non-ministerial roles. Indeed, the court observed, Union Gospel argues that hiring only co-religionists in non-ministerial roles is critical to serving its mission and spreading its message because its non-ministerial employees foster a community and support system for its outward facing ministry. Union Gospel further contends that employing likeminded believers in non-ministerial roles helps ensure that it communicates a united and consistent religious message to the public.

“If a religious institution sincerely believes that its non-ministerial employees must adhere to and live according to its religious principles to accomplish its religious mission, the only way a court could adjudicate a dispute for a plaintiff would be to rule that the religious institution cannot seek that ‘mission’ or that the hiring policy isn’t necessary to that ‘mission’—inherently religious questions,” the court stated, and such a ruling would violate the institution’s free exercise rights. Thus, the court continued, “in some cases, we may permit ‘a religious organization... to condition employment,’ even non-ministerial employment, ‘on subscription to particular religious tenets.’”

Limits. But the church autonomy doctrine, said the court, “has no place when a religious organization’s actions are ‘patently devoid of religious sincerity’ or based on ‘purely secular’ philosophical concerns.” Further, the court reasoned, because the hiring of non-ministerial positions is not necessarily a religious matter, the church autonomy doctrine only protects religious institutions’ non-ministerial hiring policy on a showing that the employment decision was “rooted in religious belief” that was “sincerely held.”

The court also found that the church autonomy doctrine in the context of hiring of non-ministerial employees differs from the ministerial exception in that the ministerial exception immunizes religious organizations from all employment-discrimination laws in the case of ministers while the church autonomy doctrine protects a religious organization from an employment discrimination suit only to the extent the hiring of co-religionist non-ministerial employees is based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Explaining that its decision “is limited to religious ministries, like Union Gospel, which plainly qualify for protection under the church autonomy doctrine,” the court stressed that it did not consider “whether other types of entities under the umbrella of a religious organization, such as commercial businesses or hospitals, would receive similar First Amendment protection in the hiring of co-religionists.” In sum, said the court, in cases involving the hiring of non-ministerial employees, a religious institution may enjoy the protection of the church autonomy doctrine when a challenged hiring decision is rooted in a sincerely held religious belief.

Noting that the state did not contest that Union Gospel is a religious institution, that it has a sincerely held religious belief that only co-religionists may advance its religious mission, and that its co-religionist hiring policy is based on that religious belief, the court found it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that enforcing WLAD against it for hiring only co-religionists violates the church autonomy doctrine. “The alternative would mean that the State could interfere with a religious mission and drive it from the public sphere. Such a result is contrary to the First Amendment’s principles.”

Remaining factors. Turning to the remaining preliminary injunction factors, the court found that Union Gospel established irreparable harm because it demonstrated the existence of a colorable First Amendment claim and the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, constitutes irreparable injury. The public interest and balance of equities also weighed in its favor as it is in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights. And here, the court observed, “for over 70 years, WLAD has exempted non-profit religious organizations, like Union Gospel, from its scope. The protections Union Gospel receives here are what it previously enjoyed before the Washington Supreme Court narrowly construed the WLAD’s exception for religious employers, and what Union Gospel otherwise would receive under Title VII and various state analogs.”

Accordingly, the court affirmed the preliminary injunction entered by the lower court.

The case is No. 24-7246.

Judge: Bumatay, P.

Attorneys: David Andrew Cortman (Alliance Defending Freedom) and David K. Dewolf (Albrecht Law) for Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington. Daniel Jeon, Office of the Attorney General, for Nick Brown.

Companies: Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington

Cases: Discrimination ReligiousDiscrimination SexDiscrimination RemediesDamages Procedure AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews