California Attorney General Rob Bonta is leading a 14-state legal charge at the Ninth Circuit, arguing that a recent panel ruling takes a bite out of state workplace anti-discrimination laws. Last Tuesday, Bonta and a coalition of state attorneys general filed an amicus brief backing Washington State’s request for a rehearing en banc after a three-judge panel upheld a preliminary injunction that lets a Yakima religious shelter prefer co-religionists in hiring. The filing casts the fight as a high-stakes clash between religious-institution autonomy and states’ authority to shield workers from discrimination.
In a press release, the California Department of Justice said it submitted the brief in Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Brown to support Washington’s motion for rehearing en banc. The brief, dated last Monday, argues that the Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling is "unsupported by legal precedent and harms states’ well-founded interests in protecting residents from employment discrimination," and it lists the 14 attorneys general who signed on with Bonta.
What the appeals court said
On January 6, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed a district court’s preliminary injunction, holding that the church-autonomy doctrine can shield a religious institution’s decision to hire co-religionists even for non-ministerial positions. The panel said courts should not intrude on internal church decisions that affect the faith and mission of the church itself, language drawn directly from the opinion. The Ninth Circuit opinion lays out the panel’s full reasoning.
Bonta, in California’s filing, warned that the panel decision could strip workers of protections, saying, Anti-discrimination laws, like those in Washington, allow states to protect their residents from serious mental, physical, and financial harm. According to the California Department of Justice, the brief urges the court to keep states’ ability to enforce employment protections intact.
What the amici argue
The amicus brief, filed on behalf of 14 states and the District of Columbia, argues that there is no legal precedent for expanding religious employers’ hiring rights beyond the ministerial exception. It warns that embracing the panel’s broad view of the church-autonomy doctrine would strip many thousands of workers of the most basic job protections and cites research and statistics about workplace discrimination. The California Department of Justice has posted the amicus brief, which details the coalition’s legal arguments and citations.
Legal stakes and next steps
Washington State has asked the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc, and the court must now decide whether a majority of active judges will take it up. If the full court refuses, the panel decision will stand in its three-judge form and could invite further appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the full court agrees to rehear the case, it could narrow or widen the church-autonomy doctrine across the circuit. Either way, the outcome could reshape how state anti-discrimination laws apply to faith-based employers, with consequences for thousands of workers.
Legal and local outlets have been following the filings; Davis Vanguard reported on California’s press release today. For California, Bonta’s move signals a multistate push to preserve workplace protections in the face of expansive First Amendment claims.
