President Trump’s Department of Justice is investigating a new Washington state law that makes clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse, arguing it violates the First Amendment.
The state legislation was signed into law on Friday, May 2, by Gov. Bob Ferguson. It means church leaders will now be required to report child abuse or neglect to authorities, and unlike many other states, it mandates that clergy do so even if they learned of the allegations during a confession.
The Justice Department said it would open a civil rights investigation “into the development and passage” of the bill, “which appears on its face to violate the First Amendment.”
In a statement Tuesday evening, Ferguson stood by the legislation.
“We look forward to protecting Washington kids from sexual abuse in the face of this ‘investigation’ from the Trump Administration,” Ferguson said.
The bill’s passage came after three straight years of intense debate within the state Legislature, often spurred by strong opposition from Catholic lobbyists who opposed any requirement that priests report child abuse if the allegations were revealed during a confession.
The announcement from the DOJ expressed similar opposition, noting that the law includes “no exception for the absolute seal of confidentiality that applies to Catholic Priests.”
But in signing the bill on Friday, Ferguson noted that as a Catholic himself, he believes the bill “protects Washingtonians from abuse and harm.”
“I always have a personal perspective on this,” Ferguson said. “For me, this is very clear and important legislation.”
State Sen. Noel Frame, who introduced the bill, rejected the notion that the bill is targeting Catholics, pointing out, as she has repeatedly in legislative hearings, that she introduced the legislation after reading InvestigateWest’s coverage of the way Jehovah’s Witnesses hid sexual abuse for decades and how Washington was one of the few states that did not require clergy to report such allegations.
She also disagrees with the argument that the bill is a violation of the First Amendment.
In its press release, the DOJ argues that the law “singles out” clergy by making them the only “supervisors,” as defined by state law, “who may not rely on legal privileges” to avoid reporting child abuse.
“Perhaps they should read the bill,” Frame quipped.
Under already-existing Washington state law, confessions to clergy were one of many so-called “privileged communications,” which includes doctor-patient confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. The new law specifies that when it comes to making a report of child abuse or neglect to authorities, the privileged communications statute no longer applies to clergy.
But Frame said that isn’t singling clergy out. Domestic violence advocates, therapists and unions — all groups with “privileged communications” under state law — already lose the privilege in child abuse cases and still must follow mandatory reporting laws. Doctors can also be called to testify during judicial proceedings of child abuse cases. Clergy, meanwhile, still don’t have to testify in court during such cases — the new law only applies to reporting information to authorities.
A survivor of child sexual abuse herself, Frame, D-Seattle, first tried to make clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse in 2023.
She said ultimately she isn’t too surprised at the news of the investigation.
“I shouldn’t be surprised that the Trump administration is launching an investigation into a law that seeks to protect children from child abuse and neglect,” she said in an interview.
This article was first published by InvestigateWest (investigatewest.org), an independent news nonprofit dedicated to investigative journalism in the Pacific Northwest. Wilson Criscione can be reached at wilson@investigatewest.org.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com.
Strange a school, counselor or therapist has a duty to report child abuse to the government but has no duty to inform parents. I think the state should take possession of all children at birth that way we can eliminate all child abuse.
I find it very unlikely that child abuse would ever be eliminated. I find the suggestion that the state “take possession of all children” very troubling. Firstly because I don’t know what it means. Secondly, because children generally belong with their parents. Sadly, on occasion a parent is the person abusing the child, or allowing the abuse to happen.
The state says they want to protect children from abuse and take it to the extreme with this new law, they also think children should have autonomy from their parents and take that to the extreme by gutting the parental bill of rights and passing a student bill of rights. Yes abuse can take many forms and can come from the parents. Let’s say a child is complaining of abuse at home to the school councilor they are required to notify the authorities which is fine but the parents are in the dark until CPS is knocking on the door and taking the kid away. The claims may be valid they may not but the parents get no chance to deal with the problem before they get a knock on the door. The abuse could be outside the home like the pastor at church but still the parents are left in the dark. In my opinion there should be complete transparency between schools and parents about the children but the state/schools are putting up barriers.
Having years ago participated in the State Foster Care system, in those days the system was the authority
And foster parents had little or none.
No governmental agency can replace good parenting.
Your response needs wisdom from experience.
You do not believe that man is not good.
No man is good. Perhaps think the state is good? You are mistaken. Man’s corruption is endemic, and power grabing is a symptom.
The Trump administration Seeks not action for improved child welfare, but, self power which you appear to have surrendered.
Samuel, I am not sure to whom you are writing. Let me take out the two negatives in your statement, “You do not believe that man is not good.” And say, You believe that man is good. Is this what you meant to express?
I sure could use more wisdom. At my age I am not sure how much more experience will contribute to my wisdom. For now I can say that man is very capable of both good and bad. Have I surrendered self power? I suppose it depends upon what you mean by self power.
I am fine with this law being pushed back on. Religous liberty and the one’s confidence in the confessional are protected and no state law will alter that. More overreach by the state.
No Catholic would support taking away the Seal of Confession. Going against one of the most basic and sacred tenants of the faith is sacrilegious. Ferguson is not a true Catholic, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. He needs to be excommunicated from the Church.
I do not look forward to the day, sometime in the future, when an undercover law enforcement officer “confesses” a reportable crime, just to test if the priest reports it.
Child abuse is a crime. At what point does someone become complicit in the committing of a crime when that person does nothing to stop or report it? Especially if the crime is continuously occurring? Especially when the victims may not be able to speak for themselves? Personally I would feel morally responsible to go to authorities. Now in Washington state there is a legal responsibility to report the crime of child abuse to authorities. This is okay by me! Pastors and priests can figure out how to comply with this law without violating their religious obligations.
I don’t appreciate this deep conflict with the freedom to conduct religion. It’s a constitutional right that trumps the desire of the government to fight crime, and it trumps the current will of the people to do “whatever it takes”. It is fundamental and must be respected, and to deny this is to deny the rights that this nation was founded upon – those of individuals to practice their conscience freely.
If this law is upheld by the US Supreme Court, then freedom of religion in the constitutional sense will have been lost. Perhaps you don’t care about this, but the losses of individual freedoms WILL eventually catch up with you personally.
In my opinion the Supreme Court has made some extremely regrettable decisions, most recently the Citizens United ruling that corporations are people. They are the last resort for what is constitutional. I will abide by their rulings.
Let’s say a child abuser confesses to a priest, who is not obliged to report the interaction to authorities. The priest forgives the sin(s). The sinner is free of authorities and may or may not stop abusing. If the priest and abuser know the law requires the priest to report abuse heard in confession, the abuser may not confess the crime and not be forgiven. No harm, no foul for the priest. The sinner is unforgiven. In both cases the abused child may still be suffering abuse. If the sinner confesses knowing the priest must alert authorities, the abuser is essentially confessing both to God and the state. A winner for everyone under terrible circumstances. The abuse will stop!
So, for you the choice of the criminal/sinner appears to be:
A. Confess both to God and to State, or
B. Confess to neither.
Thanks to the State, in your realm of thought, the criminal/sinner is to be denied his freedom of religion.
What other freedoms would you like to see denied? Are we simply too far removed from State power at the moment? How submissive to government should we be?!
And while we’re at it, why not remove force attorneys to report their clients’ crimes to the police as well?
On the contrary, the abuser could always choose to not abuse any longer.
I am baffled since I don’t feel that I am denying anyone their freedom to practice a religion of their choice. I am trying to protect children. I may find that the courts do not believe the law in question aligns with the Constitution. In that case authorities will not be able to rely on the information that parsons or priests obtain in intimate conversations their faithful. As I said earlier, I believe that the Supreme Court is the final voice on what is constitutional.
On a side note, perhaps we can agree that the clergy must alert authorities about child abusers they learn about through conversations outside the confessional.
Good point why don’t we, certainly if clergy must confess others sins., a lawyer should not be granted any greater protection. Or is government god now? The ultimate arbiter? Where only lawyers can keep secrets?
Jim – PLEASE proof read!
I realize my reply may not resonate with all readers. The truth is, priests will go to jail before they disclose what is revealed under the Seal of Confession which may in fact grow the faith. Unfortunately we live in a broken world where people commit sins against each other, themselves and ultimately against God. Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is the ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. However, the Sacrament of Confession is a sacrament of hope, healing and reconciliation. People who seek it are those who are remorseful for what they have done, they know they have a broken relationship with God. A spiritual encounter with the Divine Physician, Jesus Christ, per the priest, in the Confessional can lead a penitent to make amends, restitution and own up to their transgressions outside the bounds of the sacrament and to accept the consequences of their sins. I am a sinner who needs the seal of Confession to be retained and protected for me and for all sinners who meet Jesus, who is Divine Mercy, in the Confessional to restore their relationship with God the Father. I pray Catholics continue to access this sacrament of mercy. Jesus, I trust in you.
“the Sacrament of Confession is a sacrament of hope, healing and reconciliation”….This is exactly the best way for an abuser to have the best chance of stopping their behavior. I completely agree with this whole eloquent response. Very well stated Rebecca!
I agree with your statement that priests will be imprisoned before they break the seal of the confessional. However, this law is persecutorial in nature, putting political pressure on religious people. As I alluded to earlier (above), if the State wishes to further persecute catholic priests, now they have a tool – send an undercover cop to “confess”, then if the priest doesn’t report it he is sent to jail. This may not be likely now, but this is most definitely a step in that direction. The State’s legal arm-twisting is in general a terrible trend. People have consciences and can decide for themselves whether or not to snitch. Professions can kick out their teachers and doctors and so forth on policy grounds. But the State should never *force* anyone to turn in another person under prosecutorial pressure. Humans have dignity and rights inherent in their being, and the State should not have the ability to force *any* individual to speak. NOT saying something may have implications, but should NEVER be illegal. Forcing this speech on clergy is indeed even much worse as it is the State interceding in an individual’s relationship with the divine. The statement “But it’s the children!” is not an exception to this. I, as much as any decent human, abhor the abuse of any other person. Free speech. Free religion.
Basic to this new law is just how is child abuse defined? Blatant abuse may be easily agreed upon, but is spanking child abuse? Is spanking once with a hand not abuse, but would a pattern of spanking with a stick definitely be child abuse? I would consider smacking a child’s face even once to be child abuse, but maybe the smacker righteously doesn’t and would not consider confessing it, so the abuse isn’t stopped. Maybe the smacker isn’t Catholic or even religious. To think this new law is going to end child abuse is naive.
But another consideration and related to this is the priestly sexual abuse of children and the coverup. As a cradle Catholic I think that priests themselves receive the Sacrament of Penance from each other. So now a Confessor will legally need to report an abusing priest to the authorities. If this law was in effect earlier maybe the sexual abuse of children or grooming in seminaries wouldn’t have existed to the extent that it did, nor the coverup by bishops of untold harm.