Federal Court Expands Churches’ Ability to Hire Only Fellow Believers

Citation: Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Wash. v. Brown, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 183

Churches typically want to hire employees who share their religious beliefs. 

However, state laws say employers cannot discriminate based on religion, and the exemptions provided to religious employers usually limit any discrimination to jobs involving specific religious duties. 

But a recent case decided by a federal court suggests churches and religious organizations should have more room to discriminate based upon religion when it comes to nonministerial roles such as custodians, receptionists, and IT employees.  

Union Gospel Mission in Yakima, Washington, sought to fill over 50 positions, including an IT technician role and an operations assistant. It wanted to hire only Christians for these nonministerial jobs, but the ministry believed the Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibited it from doing so. 

Union Gospel, citing the First Amendment and related protections, pursued an injunction in federal court to prevent the state’s human rights commission from enforcing the nondiscrimination law against it. 

A district court granted the injunction in favor of Union Gospel. The state appealed.

In early 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that religious employers like Union Gospel can hire only fellow believers for any job, not just religious-related roles. (Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Washington State Attorney General, et al., ___ 4d ____ (9^th Cir. 2026)). 

The Ninth Circuit said that if a church or religious organization’s mission requires all employees to share its beliefs, it can make that a condition of employment under what’s known as the church autonomy doctrine. 

Put another way, this case demonstrates a way for a church to employ only like-minded believers in all positions, expanding protections for a church to make employment decisions based on its religious beliefs.

This decision, binding only in the nine states falling under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, also provides persuasive precedence for future cases arising elsewhere nationwide. 

The church autonomy doctrine, rooted in the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, has developed through decades of court decisions. It holds that no governmental authority can intrude into the internal decision making of a church, absent fraud and a few other exceptions.

Courts have applied the church autonomy doctrine to employment discrimination cases, shaping what’s known as the ministerial exception doctrine. But those only address ministerial positions (including the US Supreme Court’s unanimous 2012 ruling recognizing the right of churches to choose anyone for jobs with religious duties without any government interference). 

The Union Gospel case goes further, letting churches require all employees–even those in non-religious jobs–to share their beliefs and doctrine as a condition for employment.

The ministerial exception is a subset of the body of law known as the “church autonomy doctrine.” The church autonomy doctrine arises from the Religious Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 

Under the doctrine, religious institutions have “the right . . . ‘to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.'” (Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 736 (2020) (quoting Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952)). 

The court observed:

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. 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.

The Ninth Circuit noted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already exempts religious employers from federal prohibitions to discriminate based upon religion. However, it found Washington’s law provided too narrow of an exemption for religious employers, warranting its ruling.

The Union Gospel case shows how other churches facing state antidiscrimination laws can preserve their rights to hire only fellow believers:

The right to hire only Christians is about faith, not other types of discrimination. 

Churches cannot break other employment laws when dealing with nonministerial positions, the Ninth Circuit said. For example, the church cannot refuse to hire someone for a nonministerial job because of a disability. 

(By contrast, the ministerial exception bars any lawsuits under federal or state employment statutes by ministerial-type employees.)  

Here is a task list for churches that decide to employ only like-minded believers, in accordance with the church autonomy doctrine.

To prove that the above steps accurately reflect a church’s sincerely held beliefs, the church must consistently expect its employees to follow those beliefs. 

Each time the church grants an exception to an applicant or employee, it undermines its authority to hire only like-minded believers for nonministerial roles.

This court decision is binding in nine states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). In other states, the case provides helpful guidance, but courts are not required to follow it.

All churches should consult with a local employment law attorney on how to use this case to build the most vigorous defense if a federal or state regulator challenges their hiring practices.