104 F.4th 744
9th Cir.2024Background
- The case involves City of Spokane firefighters terminated for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine after the City refused to grant requested religious accommodations, as required under Governor Inslee’s Proclamation.
- Though the Proclamation allowed for religious exemptions, the firefighters alleged Spokane applied accommodation procedures arbitrarily and failed to offer them while allowing unvaccinated firefighters from neighboring departments (who had received religious exemptions from those departments) to work in Spokane under mutual aid agreements.
- The plaintiffs sued Spokane’s mayor, fire chief, and the City, arguing a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, and the State intervened to defend the Proclamation.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, and denied leave to amend the complaint.
- After appeal began, the challenged Proclamation was rescinded, but plaintiffs sought both retrospective (damages) and prospective (reinstatement) relief.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, analyzing mootness, the Free Exercise claim, and the denial of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the termination of firefighters for failure to receive the COVID-19 vaccine under the Proclamation violated the Free Exercise Clause as applied | Bacon: Spokane applied the Proclamation in a non-neutral, non-generally applicable way, allowing unvaccinated outside firefighters to work in Spokane but denying in-house religious objectors; less restrictive alternatives existed | Woodward: Proclamation was neutrally and generally applied; mutual aid was a pre-existing arrangement, not an exemption; only reasonable accommodations required under Title VII; all similarly situated employees treated the same | Court: Strict scrutiny applies; policy was not generally applicable due to secular exemptions (outside firefighters); plaintiffs plausibly alleged Free Exercise violation |
| Whether rescission of the Proclamation mooted the firefighters' claims for damages and injunctive relief | Bacon: Claims are not moot—punitive damages sought for past harm and reinstatement remains prospective relief | Woodward: Rescission of the mandate moots all prospective and retrospective claims | Court: Claims live—damages and potential reinstatement are viable |
| Whether the City's implementation of the policy was narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of curbing COVID-19 | Bacon: Alternatives like masking, testing, social distancing, and considering natural immunity were less restrictive; application underinclusive | Woodward: Direct vaccination mandate was necessary and narrowly tailored for public safety | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged less restrictive means existed; underinclusiveness undermined narrow tailoring |
| Whether leave to amend should have been granted | Bacon: Leave to amend should be liberally given, especially as new facts arose; complaint could be strengthened | Woodward: Deadline passed; lack of diligence; no good cause shown for amendment | Court: District court abused discretion; leave to amend should have been allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (establishes standard for neutrality and general applicability under the Free Exercise Clause)
- Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. 61 (2021) (strict scrutiny applies where secular activities are treated more favorably than religious ones during the pandemic)
- Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (applies Free Exercise Clause to states)
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020) (application of strict scrutiny to COVID-19 restrictions on religious exercise)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (underinclusiveness and overinclusiveness in constitutional tailoring)
- Doe v. San Diego Unified School District, 19 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. 2021) (distinction between facially neutral mandates and implementation impacting Free Exercise)