DOJ sues Washington state over law forcing Catholic priests to break seal of confession

At the center of the dispute is Senate Bill 5375, signed into law by Democratic Governor Bob Ferguson. The law eliminates the clergy-penitent privilege in cases involving suspected child abuse or neglect, effectively requiring clergy members, including Catholic priests, to report confessions related to such offenses to authorities. For Catholic priests, who are bound by the sacred seal of Confession, complying with the law would result in immediate excommunication from the Church.

According to the Justice Department, the law infringes upon the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by targeting Catholic religious practices and creating a double standard for religious and secular confidentiality.

“Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. “Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges.”

The legal action comes as the Department moves to intervene in Etienne v. Ferguson, a case currently before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In May, the DOJ also opened a formal civil rights investigation into the law, citing serious concerns about religious liberty.

In an interview last month with The Ari Hoffman Show on Talk Radio 570 KVI, Dhillon elaborated on the department’s concerns. “This looked to me like a First Amendment violation on its face,” she said. “If priests in Washington follow this law, they could be excommunicated for breaking the sacred seal of confession.”

Dhillon, who has a long history of litigating religious freedom cases, said the law appears to ignore established legal protections for religious practice. “The law recognizes certain privileges, like attorney-client and medical confidentiality, but it does not honor the religious confessional, despite it being equally essential in the eyes of many faiths,” she noted.

Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, Dhillon explained that any law burdening religious practice must withstand strict scrutiny—the highest level of judicial review. “The standard for infringing on religious liberty is incredibly high. Congress has even gone beyond the First Amendment with statutes like RLUIPA and the FACE Act to protect houses of worship.”

While acknowledging the state’s interest in protecting children, Dhillon warned that such goals must be balanced with constitutional rights. “This law puts clergy in an impossible position—comply with the state and be excommunicated, or honor their faith and face legal consequences.”

Critics have also pointed to inconsistencies in how the law treats mandated reporting across professions. During the KVI interview, Hoffman asked Dhillon about proposed legislation that would allow teachers to delay reporting suspected abuse by up to 48 hours. “It’s not even rationally consistent,” she said. “That kind of uneven treatment of religious versus secular institutions is constitutionally indefensible.”

Dhillon emphasized that the DOJ’s action is not politically motivated. “We don’t care which party is involved or which faith is affected,” she said. “This isn’t political—it’s about upholding the Constitution.”

As debate over the law continues, Dhillon urged caution against expanding government authority at the expense of foundational freedoms. “Where does it stop? Can we force everyone to report everything? That becomes compelled speech, which is unconstitutional. This country was built on protecting religious expression, not dismantling it.”

The DOJ has committed to investigating whether the law was intended to discriminate or if its effect is incidental. “Either way, it raises serious constitutional concerns,” Dhillon said.