Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima, Washington v. Brown, a case challenging a Washington state law that limits religious nonprofit ministries in decisions on who they can hire.

Union Gospel, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, hires only employees who adhere to its religious beliefs and practices regarding marriage and sexuality. In 2021, the Washington State Supreme Court narrowed the state’s 1949 anti-discrimination law (Washington Law Against Discrimination) which began forbidding ministries like Union Gospel from discriminating based solely on sexual orientation for non-ministerial roles, such as information technology (IT) technicians and other support and administrative jobs.

In January 2026, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit issued a narrow preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing its employment discrimination law against Union Gospel, a Christian homeless shelter ministry with about 150 employees. The panel unanimously ruled the First Amendment’s well-established Church Autonomy Doctrine forbids government interference in the internal hiring decisions that affect a religious institution’s faith and mission. However, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown is appealing that decision requesting the full Ninth Circuit rehear the case.

Liberty Counsel filed the amicus brief on behalf of Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church, both located in Lynchburg, Virginia. These religious organizations have a compelling interest in this case as they also view every employee between “the pastor and the plumber; the chancellor and the custodian; and the deacon and the dishwasher” as all vital to fulfilling their religious missions.

In the brief, Liberty Counsel cites dozens of judicial precedents from as early as 1871 to the present that show the First Amendment gives religious organizations, including churches, ministries, religious schools, and other institutions, “broad autonomy” to decide matters of faith, doctrine and mission, as well as employee selection beyond just the ministerial roles.

Liberty Counsel notes that the rights of religious organizations “surely include the freedom to choose who is qualified to serve as a voice for their faith.”

“In fact, protecting a religious organization’s right to select only those who share its fundamental beliefs, Scriptural interpretations, and standards of conduct is vital to the very existence of religious organizations, and courts must zealously guard against infringements on those irreducible constitutional protections,” wrote Liberty Counsel.

The brief states that employees in IT, maintenance, custodial, administrative, and even remote positions help advance an organization’s religious mission where these groups must be free to hire only those whose beliefs and conduct align with that mission. 

Liberty Counsel also cites numerous precedents that federal courts lack authority and jurisdiction under the First Amendment and Free Exercise Clauses to resolve disputes involving religious doctrine and impose decisions that violate that doctrine.

“Second-guessing religious institutions’ fundamental right to govern their own internal management decisions would run roughshod over the First Amendment and cannot be permitted,” concluded Liberty Counsel.

Any potential ruling from the Ninth Circuit may have implications in similar cases in other circuit court jurisdictions. In a case in the U.S. Fourth Circuit that has attracted national attention, Zinski v. Liberty University, Liberty Counsel represents Liberty University which terminated IT specialist Jonathan Zinski in 2023 for flagrantly and intentionally violating the university’s doctrinal statement regarding the biblical understanding of human sexuality. Zinski, a biological male, informed the university after his 90-day probationary employment period expired that he wanted to “transition” to “identify as female” and change his name to “Ellenor.” Zinski alleges his firing amounts to “sex discrimination.” Zinski set up this case when he applied to be hired. However, Liberty Counsel argues that Sections 702 and 703 of Title VII, the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious institutions like Liberty University to make employment decisions when those decisions are based on religion and the employee’s violative conduct. 

While Zinski contends that Liberty University must be compelled to employ him despite his beliefs and actions being in direct opposition to the university’s religious mission, the Ninth Circuit’s previous ruling severely undermines that argument, which the Fourth Circuit is likely to consider. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “A century and a half of First Amendment precedent establishes that religious organizations, not courts, get to decide who they employ in consistency with their religious beliefs and mission. The Ninth Circuit panel has already correctly ruled that the Yakima Union Gospel Mission is constitutionally exempt from Washington’s anti-discrimination law when making employment decisions based on its religious mission. The implications of this case can extend to Liberty Counsel’s case, Zinski v. Liberty University, where Jonathan Zinski intentionally and deceptively set up Liberty University to undermine its religious beliefs and mission. If a single employee can demand that its faith-based employer abandon its religious beliefs to conform to the employee’s worldview, then religious freedom has no meaning. This is precisely the reason we have the Church Autonomy Doctrine under the First Amendment to protect religious organizations.”