Source: washingtonstatestandard.com 6/23/25
Washington bishops sued last month to prevent the law from taking effect. Now, the Trump administration is looking to back their lawsuit.
The Trump Administration moved Monday to join a legal fight to overturn a new Washington law requiring religious leaders to report child abuse or neglect even when it is disclosed in confession.
A motion filed in federal court by the Department of Justice argues the law, which takes effect next month, is unconstitutional because it “deprives Catholic priests of their fundamental right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, as guaranteed under the First Amendment.”
“The punishment for directly violating the sacramental seal of Confession is excommunication. A more direct burden on the exercise of religion would be difficult to imagine,” federal attorneys wrote in their motion to intervene in a case brought by Washington bishops last month.
That case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
At issue is Senate Bill 5375, which will take effect July 27. It adds clergy members to the state’s list of individuals legally required to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement or the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
Disclosures in confession or other rites where the religious leader is bound to confidentiality are not exempt. But under the law, clergy will retain their privilege to avoid testifying in related court cases or criminal proceedings.
No one is above the law! Clergy or not, everyone is to be subject to the same laws!
I firmly believe in the forgiveness of God, but there are still earthly consequences for breaking the law even though God forgives you.
Clergy are just like everyone else-they put their pants on one leg at a time.
What a crock of 💩. Hypocrisy at its highest. Is there any single entity more culpable than the Catholic church when it comes to harming children? This is about power, money, and protecting their business interests. Nothing else.
” I’m disappointed in my church for filing a federal lawsuit protecting individuals who abuse kids.” I’m not even Catholic and I agree with this statement. I thought we didn’t want anymore victims, but I guess it’s fine when a religious figure commits abuse.
Sorry, but I vehemently disagree with this law and any other law mandates reporting anything from anyone. I don’t see it any different from requiring confessionals, mental health provider offices, lawyers, etc. to audio and video record all interactions and turn them over to LE for periodic review. It is WAY too big an intrusion by the state into private lives and matters. And I certainly wouldn’t trust LE or the state to determine what in those private lives requires interference, which eventually will be EVERYTHING. It’s outright foolish to burn down the whole forest just to kill the snakes.
I honestly couldn’t care less about the standing, protection, and financial matters of churches, teachers, MH providers, lawyers and the like – that’s their business, not mine (or the state’s). And I’m certainly not pro-child abuse or anything to that effect. The same “hit-them-all-to make-sure-we-get-the-bad-ones” line of reasoning is a big part of why the registry is such a disaster.
I wonder how much the Vatican had to “donate” to Trump to get him to come on board. Pretty obvious that his support is for sale. Probably hid it by buying trump branded crypto.
At issue is not how anyone feels about this bill, but the simple fact that it violates the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Everyone here should be extremely happy that the Trump administration is looking to back this lawsuit.
This shows the administration’s loyalty to preserving the constitutional protections we all should be able to rely on, which most courts have chosen to disregard, especially when it comes to PFR.
Now, if we could just get the administration to uphold the protections provided in Article 1 Section 10 against Bill of Attainder, ex post facto, and the Obligation of Contracts.
Along with the protections guaranteed by Amendment I against abridging the freedom of speech.
Amendment VIII against cruel and unusual punishment, against one of the least likely citizens to reoffend. Many who are women and children.
The Thirteenth Amendment against slavery and involuntary servitude.
The Fourteenth Amendment against denying equal protection of the laws.
( Forcing PFR, related families, employers, co-workers to endure horrific things, stripping of many rights and benefits, that applies to no one else, even those with much higher recidivism rates.)
If the J6-ers can do it, more so we –
Political Prisoners?
Legal Allegations: A Case Built on the Constitution
Leading the Charge: Jake Lang
Lawsuit Highlights & Filing Details
Political Response
The Bigger Picture: Is This Just the Beginning?
In December 2024, a monumental legal challenge was filed against the U.S. Department of Justice by over 100 individuals arrested in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol protest. The class-action lawsuit demands $50 billion in damages, claiming widespread constitutional violations, wrongful imprisonment, and the use of the federal justice system as a political weapon.
What was once framed by the media as an “insurrection” is now entering a new legal chapter—one of accountability, civil rights, and potentially historic restitution.
⸻
The plaintiffs—many of whom have served or are still serving federal time—allege the following:
• Violation of First Amendment Rights
Peaceful assembly and political expression were criminalized.
• Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
Denial of due process, including prolonged solitary confinement and coercive plea deals.
• Eighth Amendment Cruelty
Inhumane jail conditions, including extended isolation, lack of medical care, and alleged abuse by prison staff.
• Selective Prosecution and Political Targeting
Defendants argue they were prosecuted not for criminal acts, but for their political beliefs, affiliation with Trump, or their presence near the Capitol.
• Weaponization of the DOJ and FBI
The lawsuit accuses federal agencies of coordinating a media campaign and prosecutorial strategy to label all January 6 participants as “domestic terrorists”—without allowing fair trials.
⸻
At the forefront of this legal uprising is Jake Lang, a January 6 defendant who has spent years behind bars awaiting trial. Lang is not just a plaintiff—he’s the chief organizer of this suit. From solitary confinement, Lang launched legal advocacy efforts, including his own media outreach campaign and support network for J6 prisoners.
Jake Lang and his supporters argue that no individual should be held for years without trial—especially when evidence reveals gross inconsistencies in arrests, surveillance, and FBI narratives.
⸻
• Filed: December 2024 in federal court
• Defendants: Department of Justice, FBI, Bureau of Prisons, and named federal officials
• Demand: $50 billion in damages plus criminal referrals to DOJ oversight agencies
• Current Phase: Pre-trial discovery and class certification motion under review
• Venue: Likely in the D.C. federal circuit, though a venue change has been requested for fairness
⸻
Reactions have been polarizing:
• Pro-freedom lawmakers like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rep. Matt Gaetz have expressed support, claiming this lawsuit is “long overdue” and marks the beginning of “justice for the persecuted.”
• DOJ representatives have called the case “baseless and theatrical,” signaling they will move to dismiss on procedural grounds.
• Mainstream media outlets have largely ignored or downplayed the lawsuit, while independent platforms and J6 advocacy groups have amplified it across social channels.
⸻
This $50 billion lawsuit is more than a legal filing—it’s a public indictment of the entire narrative pushed by government agencies and legacy media since January 6. With potential witnesses including J6 prisoners, family members, jail officials, and forensic analysts, the case could unearth major evidence of political persecution and due process violations.
If the courts allow it to move forward, it could reshape how America views January 6—not as a violent riot, but as a flashpoint in a larger war between constitutional liberty and deep state tyranny.