A blue state’s “anti-discrimination” law targeting Christian organizations has been struck by a federal appellate court as blatantly unconstitutional. In 2023, Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington, filed a lawsuit to block enforcement of the state of Washington’s “Law Against Discrimination” (WLAD), arguing that the law’s prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics violated the Christian group’s First Amendment rights to hire only fellow Christians who adhere to a biblical understanding of sex and marriage. The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with Union Gospel Mission in a ruling this week.

“The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment protect religious institutions from government interference over their internal affairs involving faith and doctrine” and “prohibit state meddling in the religious matters of religious organizations,” wrote Judge Patrick J. Bumatay in the court’s majority opinion. “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 nonreligious reasons.”

Bumatay pointed to a legal precedent known as the “church autonomy doctrine,” which protects religious institutions from government interference. One dimension of the church autonomy doctrine is the “ministerial exception,” which exempts the hiring, retention, and dismissal of religious ministers from anti-discrimination laws. “Simply, the government has no business in policing who spreads the word on behalf of churches, synagogues, mosques, religious organizations, and other similar institutions,” Bumatay summarized. “But the church autonomy doctrine is not so narrowly drawn.”

In addition to the ministerial exception, the church autonomy doctrine also permits churches and religious organizations to hire and fire employees without regard for anti-discrimination laws when it comes to “matters of faith and doctrine.” Bumatay explained:

“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. And a religious institution may conclude that it would undermine the institution’s identity and mission as a religious organization if its own employees contradict or disavow the tenets it teaches.”

Bumatay clarified that religious organizations still have to adhere to anti-discrimination laws in most regards when hiring or firing non-ministerial employees but are protected when hiring or firing on the basis of religious criteria.

“Ordinarily, even religious institutions must follow generally applicable employment laws. But if state law were to prevent religious institutions from employing only co-religionists, those institutions could be forced to hire employees who openly flout and disagree with their religious principles,” the appellate judge wrote. “This, the First Amendment doesn’t tolerate. Because who a religious organization hires may go to the very character of its religious mission, the church autonomy doctrine protects the decision to hire co-religionists for non-ministerial roles if that decision is based on the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

“Under the church autonomy doctrine, Union Gospel may decline to hire as non-ministerial employees those who do not share its religious beliefs about marriage and sexuality,” the appellate court declared. However, Bumatay warned that the ruling is “a narrow” one. “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,” he continued. “We do not consider the scope of the doctrine on other types of entities run by religious institutions, such as businesses or hospitals.”

WLAD was originally enacted in 1949 and was amended in later years to protect employees and prospective employees against discrimination on the grounds of sex and sexual orientation. The law previously exempted religious institutions and organizations from its definition of an “employer,” but a 2021 Washington Supreme Court decision interpreted that exemption narrowly, applying only to ministerial roles, and therefore applying the anti-discrimination law to religious institutions and organizations when hiring or firing non-ministerial employees.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Jeremiah Galus, who represented the Union Gospel Mission in the case, touted the court’s decision as a victory for religious liberty. “Religious organizations shouldn’t be punished for exercising their constitutionally protected freedom to hire employees who are aligned with and live out their shared religious beliefs,” he asserted in a statement. “Yakima Union Gospel Mission exists to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ through its homeless shelter, addiction-recovery programs, outreach efforts, meal services, and health clinics. The 9th Circuit correctly ruled that the First Amendment protects the mission’s freedom to hire fellow believers who share that calling.”

Bumatay, who was appointed to the court by President Donald Trump, was joined in his decision by fellow Trump appointee Judge Daniel A. Bress and Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson, who was appointed by Bill Clinton.