Federal Court Blocks Washington State’s Confessional Reporting Law – A Win for Religious Liberty and Child Protection

In a victory for religious freedom and the First Amendment, a federal court on Friday issued a preliminary injunction against a controversial new Washington State law that would have forced Catholic priests to violate the seal of confession.

Set to take effect in less than ten days, the law – championed by state Sen. Noel Frame – would require clergy to report any suspected child abuse, even if that information emerged solely during the Sacrament of Confession.

Sen. Frame defended the law by declaring, “You never put somebody’s conscience above the protection of a child.” The court saw the likelihood that this would be found to be a false choice. As the Catholic bishops of Washington eloquently argued in their legal brief, this law both undermines the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty and erodes a powerful pastoral mechanism that has long encouraged abusers to turn themselves in.

The bishops described the law as presenting priests with a “Hobson’s choice” between violating their sacred vows or facing criminal penalties. The seal of confession is inviolable in Catholic teaching. Any priest who breaks it faces automatic excommunication and, in the Church’s eyes, risks eternal damnation. As the bishops noted, the historical record includes priests who chose martyrdom rather than betray a penitent’s confession.

• Far from enhancing child protection, the law would likely undermine it. The bishops’ brief makes clear that confession is often the starting point of accountability. When someone confesses abuse, priests can urge the penitent to seek counseling and turn themselves in – steps that can result in mandatory reporting outside of the confessional. By destroying the confidentiality of confession, SB 5375 would ensure that abusers never confess at all, robbing the Church of its ability to confront and discipline them.

In granting the preliminary injunction, the judge concluded the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise Clause claim, and that allowing the law to take effect would impose immediate and irreparable harm. The court wisely allowed the litigation to proceed without forcing priests to choose between obeying their God or obeying the state.

• The court noted that the law discriminates on its face. It removes the privilege only for clergy, while leaving similar protections intact for lawyers, law school clinics, and even family members and domestic partners. The law thus singles out priests for special disfavor, violating both constitutional precedent and basic fairness.

 
The court’s decision is in keeping with American legal tradition. In People v. Philips, one of the nation’s earliest religious freedom cases, a New York court refused to compel a priest to testify about a confession. As that court warned, “The sinner will not confess… if the veil of secrecy is removed.”

That wisdom remains true today. No one wants to shield child abusers – but neither should we undermine one of the few institutions that has both the moral authority and the spiritual tools to compel accountability and repentance.
​
This preliminary injunction does more than protect priests. It protects a sacred space where souls confront their deepest sins. It respects a centuries-old doctrine that sees confession not as a shield from justice, but as the first step toward it.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS