.2508071344086.png)
The Roman Catholic Bishops of the Dioceses of Seattle, Yakima, and Spokane, which, when combined encompass the entire state of Washington, successfully sought to obtain a preliminary injunction to prevent recently passed law requiring priests to break the seal of confession from being put into effect. In the case of Etienne vs. Ferguson, the United States District Court of Washington Judge David G. Estudillo, appointed by President Biden in 2021, granted the injunction, finding that the Bishops were likely to succeed on the merits that the law, SB 5375, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment and met the criteria to obtain a preliminary injunction. Judge Estudillo notes that the Court did not consider the Church Autonomy Doctrine and Establishment Clause claims at the time, basing his ruling solely on the Bishops’ challenge concerning the Free Exercise Clause.
As mentioned in detail in our previous blog on this case, SB 5375 sought to remove the protections for mandatory reporters that sensitive information “as a result of privileged communication.” For Roman Catholic priests and parishioners, this legislation would violate the seal of the confessional, as priests would be required to report any and all sensitive information, even information learned through the sacrament. According to its critics, SB 5375 threatens the good standing of priests within Washington state, compromising their ability to perform their duties as ordained ministers of the Catholic Church as any intentional violation of the confessional seal is grounds for a priest’s immediate excommunication from the Church. The Bill also had the potential to have a knock-on effect that, in turn, limits the ability of Washington Catholics to receive the Sacrament of Confession, preventing them from fully exercising their religious beliefs.
In his evaluation that the Bishops successfully met the high criteria to issue a preliminary injunction, Judge Estudillo centered his analysis on the specific new exclusion directed towards removing statutory reporter requirement protections for clergy members. This removal was instituted while keeping and even adding the same protections for other professionals that learn of sensitive information as a result of privileged communication. Plainly, Estudillo concluded that “there is no question that SB 5375 burdens Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion.” Additionally, the Court found that the law is not neutral and generally applicable to all parties. Estudillo compared SB5375 to the passage of a new SHB 1171 in the same legislative session. SHB 1171 sought to extend protections for situations of non-disclosure of mandatory reporters, specifically for attorneys and their employees in their working capacities for institutes of higher education. In his opinion, Estudillo concluded, “nevertheless, one law eliminates the privilege for clergy while the other expands privileges available to secular officials.” Thus, weighing all the evidence in front of him, Estudillo granted full relief to all Roman Catholic priests in Washington that fall directly under the administration of the Bishops of Washington.
This case serves as an overwhelming win for the Free Exercise of Religion and grants much needed relief to Roman Catholic priests in Washington State so that they may continue to execute their priestly duties, upholding protections for information learned through privileged communications.
We gratefully acknowledge Law Clerk Michael P. Jekot (mjekot@airdowerwas.com), an incoming law student at Loyola University Chicago, whose research and writing contributed to the preparation of this blog.