Recommended Citation
Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, When Constitutional Protection for Religious Liberty Gets Lost in Translation: A Case Study from Washington State, 53 UC Law SF Const. Q. 197 (2026), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/1169
Publication Title
UC Law Constitutional Quarterly
Keywords
religious liberty, state supreme court, Woods v. Union Gospel Mission, expressive association, ministerial exception, Washington state constitution, free exercise of religion, Washington Law Against Discrimination, compelled association
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Protecting religious liberty can present difficult challenges when religious liberty conflicts with laws prohibiting discrimination. Balancing religious liberty and nondiscrimination requires courts to accurately apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s complex First Amendment jurisprudence, including cases that address compelled speech, expressive association, and church autonomy. Amidst all the complexity, protection for religious liberty can get lost in translation. One important venue where protection can get lost in translation is in religious liberty cases decided by state supreme courts. The decisions of state supreme courts are especially significant because they provide the authoritative construction for state statutes and the state constitution. In other words, unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules otherwise, trial courts, legislators, and government officials rely on and abide by decisions of the state supreme court in matters of religious liberty.
To illustrate the challenges presented when state supreme courts translate First Amendment religious liberty jurisprudence, this article explores a recent decision from the Washington State Supreme Court, Woods v. Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. The Woods decision applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s “ministerial exception” cases but did not address cases that protect freedom of expressive association and guard against compelled speech or consider protection for the free exercise of religion. In other words, key protections for religious liberty got lost in translation. This article shows the powerful practical impact when constitutional protection for religious liberty gets lost in translation by a state supreme court. This can be seen, for example, in actions taken by the Washington State Attorney General and the Washington State Legislature against a religiously affiliated university for its employment practices. For trial courts deciding religious liberty issues after Woods, the article highlights other Washington Supreme Court religious liberty cases that could provide useful guidance in balancing religious liberty and nondiscrimination. And the article proposes that the Washington State Legislature redraft Washington’s Law Against Discrimination to better align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s religious liberty jurisprudence while, at the same time, enhancing protection against discrimination when doing so does not interfere with sincerely held religious beliefs.