The Ninth Circuit Court tests the rights of religious employers

A significant question involving religious freedom is whether Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington—a Christian ministry that operates a homeless shelter, health clinics, meal services, and programs to help recovering addicts—can hire individuals who share its faith and agree to uphold its beliefs. In 2021, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled against Union Gospel, maintaining that the right of employers to hire individuals based on their religious beliefs applied only to ordained ministers.

Following multiple rounds of litigation in federal court, on September 29, 2026, in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown, an en banc panel of all active judges on the Ninth Circuit conducted oral arguments over an order in favor of the ministry.

This article reviews the case’s factual and judicial history as it awaits resolution, then offers some analysis and commentary on its importance for religious freedom.

Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Brown

Yakima Union Gospel Mission was founded in 1932 to care for those suffering from the economic hardships of the Depression. Until 2021, Washington law protected the right of not-for-profit organizations, including those, such as the Union Gospel, that are faith-based, to hire employees who complied (as far as could be observed) with institutional religious beliefs.

Controversy arose in October 2016 when a former law student, Matthew Woods, who claimed to be a professed Christian while volunteering at Union Gospel’s legal clinic, sought a position there as a staff attorney. But after Woods disclosed that he is a bisexual in a same-sex relationship, Union Gospel’s officials refused to hire him because his lifestyle is contrary to biblical teaching.

Woods then filed suit in November 2017 in a state court, alleging that Yakima Mission violated Washington law against discrimination in denying him the job.

On appeal of an order in favor of Union Gospel in March 2021, an en banc panel of the Supreme Court of Washington reversed and remanded in favor of Woods as to whether the job he sought entailed ministerial responsibilities and functions. The panel cited the United States Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. In Hosanna-Tabor the Justices found that under the ministerial exception, which is rooted in the First Amendment, religious leaders have the sole authority to determine who qualified as ministerial employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the most significant federal anti-discrimination employment statute in its protections of religious employers.

Despite Hosanna-Tabor, Washington’s Supreme Court narrowed the broad exception in the state law against discrimination that granted institutions such as Union Gospel authority to hire based on religious preferences in line with Title VII. Concluding that Union Gospel violated Woods’ rights, the court ignored the fact that state law exempted “any religious or sectarian organization not organized for private profit” from its statutory definition of “employer.”

The United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal, with Justices Alito and Thomas dissenting.

In September 2023 a federal trial court in Washington dismissed Union Gospel’s attempt to protect its right to hire employees who share its beliefs in largely deferring to the judgment of the state’s highest court, On appeal in August 2024 the Ninth Circuit unanimously reversed in allowing Union Gospel’s case to proceed because state law exempted nonprofit organizations such as it from Washington’s statutory definition of “employer.”

On remand in November 2024, the federal trial court ruled that it was likely unconstitutional for Washington officials to enforce the law against Union Gospel while its claim was litigated. Subsequently, in January 2026, the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed in favor of Union Gospel because, under the church autonomy doctrine, institutions such as it can refuse to hire non-ministerial employees who do not share its religious beliefs about human sexuality.

However, in June 2026, a divided Ninth Circuit, with three members dissenting, vacated the trial court’s order in deciding to rehear the case en banc on September 29, 2026, a development that does not bode well for Union Gospel.

Analysis and commentary

In an earlier column I wrote for Catholic World Report involved a similar controversy where an employee at Liberty University who was seeking to accomplish the biologically impossible by “transitioning” his sex to become a woman, filed suit after officials terminated his employment because he failed to follow a doctrinal statement he signed pledging to follow Church teachings. In both cases, individuals essentially sought to compel Christian institutions to ignore their core beliefs about human sexuality by having to grant the individuals employment, even though they blatantly ignored institutional sincerely held religious beliefs by openly living lifestyles antithetical to biblical teachings.

It is unclear how or why the Supreme Court of Washington, despite citing Hosanna-Tabor eighty times, ignored its reasoning, distinguishing it away under state law. In Hosanna Tabor the Supreme Court ruled through Title VII that the First Amendment forbids the government or public bodies from contradicting the judgments of church officials who had the sole authority to select who may serve as ministers.

In Hosanna-Tabor, the Supreme Court held that despite a teacher’s allegation that her primary duties were secular, secular officials had to defer to the judgment of the faith-based school’s leaders. As such, it is difficult to understand why the courts would have wanted officials at Union Gospel to have to hire and retain individuals whose personal lifestyle choices were openly inconsistent with institutional religious values.

At the same time, the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue is instructive, even though it was a dispute over a tax credit program for contributions to student scholarship organizations rather than employment or the ministerial exception.

In Espinoza, because the state constitution prohibited public aid to “sectarian” schools, officials denied families who received these scholarships to use them at religious schools. The Supreme Court reasoned that, insofar as using the scholarships at faith-based schools is acceptable under the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause, Montana’s no-aid provision discriminated against people based on their beliefs. More specifically, using this rationale, the Justices explained that because Montana separated religion and state more strictly than the Establishment Clause permitted, it was unconstitutional because federal law trumps state enactments, a distinction that may prove important in Yakima Mission because Washington law is more restrictive than Title VII in failing to protect the rights of religious employers.

Another aspect of Union Gospel that is important is that Woods professed to be a Christian but was in a same-sex relationship, living as a bisexual man—lifestyle choices he was certainly free to adopt, but which are antithetical to Christian teachings on human sexuality. As such, there could not have been a meeting of the minds necessary for the parties to have entered into a valid contractual agreement because he clearly demonstrated that he had no intention to honor his word or Union Gospel’s values.

As such, it is surprising that Union Gospel’s attorneys did not raise this as a counterclaim because Woods was arguably setting it up for litigation in signing an agreement he had no intention of honoring. Consequently, the dispute should have been dismissed due to his dishonesty, as lacking genuine and mutual contractual agreement between the parties.

Another issue is that while Woods did not seek a formal position that qualified as ministerial per se—because he would have had to interact personally in helping others as an attorney—an argument can be made that he had to comply with Union Gospel’s beliefs as his work helped to advance its institutional religious mission. Ultimately, the issue on appeal is whether religious organizations such as Union Gospel retain their First Amendment right to freedom of religion under Title VII and the ministerial exception/ecclesiastical abstention doctrine by being able to hire staff members who agree to comply with their religious beliefs as a condition of employment.

Because the Ninth Circuit invalidated an order in favor of Union Gospel, it remains to be seen what will happen in terms of whether it, and perhaps the Supreme Court, will ultimately interpret Title VII’s ministerial exception and/or ecclesiastical abstention doctrine expansively by explicitly including all staff. Because this is a topic worth following, I plan to write a follow-up essay once the Ninth Circuit renders its judgment in Union Gospel.