The Washington state senate recently passed Senate Bill 5375, which would force all members of the clergy to report any abuse or neglect of minors that they suspect throughout the carrying out of their clerical duties. This iteration of the bill is the third attempt the Washington legislature has made at requiring mandated reporting for religious ministers, however, the newest version differs in one key aspect; it does not provide an exemption for confession, nor any form of penitential communications. Many legislators felt that the exemption for penitential communication watered the bill down too much and gave leeway for the clergy to withhold information that may be necessary in helping to protect a child from abuse or neglect. Supporters of the exemption claim that forcing religious leaders to report information that is required by their religion to be kept secret is a significant burden upon their free exercise. One state senator, Leonard Christian, claimed that; “It is forcing somebody who’s given their entire life – raised their hand, made an oath with God almighty – to choose between God’s law and man’s law,” which demonstrates how important the exemption is to those who believe in different forms of penitential communication. Alternatively, Senator Noel Frame, the bill’s prime sponsor, claims that; “religious leaders should have a responsibility to report abuse so the state can step in and take action” and “They need to know that if they tell somebody they’re being abused… that they can trust that that person will make it stop.” Frame also pointed out that “Washington is only one of five states where clergy aren’t mandatory reporters.” Whilst the proposed law makes it obligatory to report any mistreatment, it still prevents the state from compelling the clergy member to testify in any criminal proceedings that may derive from the report.
The issue at hand in this circumstance is whether forcing religious leaders to become mandatory reporters, even in the case that reporting may violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, is constitutionally permissible. Thomas Jipping, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation, wrote an article in The Daily Signal in which he cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah as evidence that “covert suppression of particular religious beliefs” is impermissible due to the lack of neutrality or general applicability. This view misses a few key aspects in the Church of the Lukumi case, most notably among them being that the city of Hialeah took specific actions with the sole expressed intention of criminalizing specific actions performed by the Santeria faith. With Justice Kennedy reasoning in the majority opinion that the laws were not generally applicable, saying; “It is a necessary conclusion that almost the only conduct subject to [the ordinances] is the religious exercise of Santeria Church members.” The law that Washington is attempting to implement has various other intentions beyond suppressing faith, nor is it narrowly tailored to target specific groups, as the ordinances in Lakumi had. The Washington law applies to any “ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect,” which is both intentionally neutral and broadly applicable to every religion.
Furthermore, while the law at hand does impose a minor imposition on the religious freedoms of those who engage in confession, the government has an interest compelling enough to justify said infringement. Protecting children from all kinds of abuse is a goal that any reasonable person will likely see as both noble and valid however, previous court decisions on free exercise infringements have examined if the action taken is the least restrictive means to go about achieving the state’s goals. An exemption would be the obvious compromise to remove the burden, however implementing such an exemption would require the government to determine what qualifies as penitential communication. Having the government weigh in on this would give the government the ability to unfairly apply these qualifications, Washington state avoids having to make such a decision by extending mandatory reporter status to confession.
In summary, I believe that there is little precedent to suggest the law Washington’s legislators seek to enact is unconstitutional in any manner. Since the law differs from the Lakumi case, in terms of generally applicability, facial neutrality, and there is a substantial government interest in regulating this conduct with no other means to go about doing so, I believe that Washington will face no constitutional obstruction if this law is enacted.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/03/02/washington-state-is-attacking-religious-freedom-and-it-wont-stop-there/
https://www.investigatewest.org/investigatewest-reports/washington-legislature-passes-bill-to-make-clergy-mandatory-reporters-of-child-abuse-17864136
https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/02/28/washington-senate-passes-bill-to-make-clergy-members-mandatory-reporters/
6 comments:
I think there is a compelling governmental interest to protect children from abuse, so clergy should be mandated reporters. While I understand religious convictions may make some conversations private, when a topic of abuse is brought up it needs to be reported. In my opinion, mandating reporting would help children without undermining religious liberty.
At face value this law is neutral and generally applicable. However, not every religion or dialect of religion has private confession practices. Therefore this mandate indirectly isolates and disproportionately effects Catholicism and Judaism. I would argue this effect is similar to that of the law in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. While the law prohibited the killing of certain animals for select purposes for all religions, Santeria was the only religion practicing animal sacrifice. Similarly, only a few religions have formal confession practices and this law would single those religions out, effectively making this policy not neutral. While I agree the government has a compelling interest in protecting children, there are ways to go about this other than infringing on a select number of religion's practices.
There is definitley compelling state interest to protect the youth from abuse, and I believe a bill that requires religious leaders to advance this interest is constitutional. In my opinion, not reporting abuse (and preventing the state from stepping in) because of a religious conviction is unacceptable, and there are no less restrictive means to achieve the state's interest in protecting the youth. This law may nto be facially netrual, because I agree that not every religion would be affected by this law, but it is a necessary precauation to have in place to protect the states youth through every avenue possible.
I am conflicted on my opinions of this trial. While I do understand the compelling interest in protecting children from problems such as abuse, there is a very clear Religious Exercise problem. Confession is a prominent ritual in the Catholic religion, and in order for the confession to be valid, the confession needs to be private. As well, I wonder the scrutiny the religion would get from Catholic Churches outside of the country for holding improper confessions. I could also see problems with the clergy being mandated reporters as children may be less inclined to confide in the clergy who could advise the child to seek help.
There is a clear compelling interest in protecting children from abuse and I'd argue to say that the goal of protecting children does override the violation of free exercise. As a practicing catholic, I believe it is important to make sure that this law only extends to protecting children because making ALL confessions non-confidential is an extreme violation of free exercise. I do think that Sam makes a very interesting point. The law is very directed at Judaism and Catholicism, so maybe this is an issue that should go back to the legislature for some rephrasing. The law should be made more general to apply to all religious organizations with the intent of protecting children.
As explained by the comments above, I believe that there is a compelling interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect. In public schools, or non-religious schools, teachers are required to report an instance where they think there is child abuse or neglect. While I understand that religious leaders have the religious duty to not share things in confession, if children are in danger, then they should be required to. As someone who went to Catholic school. I can understand why religious ministers would not want to share things said in confession. Nevertheless, if a child is being abused, they should be required to report that. In society there is a common notion that children should be protected and therefore to not report child abuse would be morally wrong in my opinion. I think that that this law should only apply to mandating child abuse, rather than reporting other incidents to protect religious organizations.
Post a Comment