New Confession Box Law Has a Legal Problem: Lawyer
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Washington State's bill to tackle sexual abuse has another legal problem when it comes to discerning between what speech is confidential and what is not, according to contract law professor Mark Movsesian.
Writing for the news outlet Reason, Movsesian said: "Washington's law expressly preserves other professional privileges, like the attorney-client privilege, but explicitly eliminates the clergy-penitent privilege. That unequal treatment presents a serious problem under current free exercise law."
The law, which is set to take effect on July 2, has already come under scrutiny from leaders within the Catholic Church, who say it directly undermines their ability to keep confessions confidential and sets priests up to either be arrested for breaking the law or excommunicated from the Church for exposing secrets told to them in Confession.
Professor Movsesian and the Washington State bill sponsor, State Senator Noel Frame, and Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown have been contacted via email for comment.
The exterior of the Washington State Capitol building is seen Friday, April 25, 2025, in Olympia, Washington.
The exterior of the Washington State Capitol building is seen Friday, April 25, 2025, in Olympia, Washington.
Maddy Grassy/AP Photo
Why It Matters
The law has triggered a national conversation about the boundaries of church and state at a time when the Justice Department (DOJ) under the Trump Administration is making efforts to crack down on what it sees as "anti-Chrisitan bias" in the United States.
What To Know
The new statute—signed by Governor Bob Ferguson—mandates clergy report suspected child abuse within 48 hours, aligning them with existing reporting laws for police officers, nurses, and teachers.
It has received significant pushback from Catholic leaders, however, the law's sponsor, State Senator Noel Frame, said she wrote the law in part due to secrecy practices within the Jehovah's Witness church which they likened to Catholic Confession.
According to Frame, herself an assault survivor, Jehovah's Witnesses were taken to court in Washington State following an investigation into sexual abuse and claimed that their internal review process could remain private as they were covered by anonymity akin to a Catholic confession.
However, Catholic leaders in the state are pushing back against this bill, saying that they are already mandatory reporters in every scenario except for confession. And, if they hear something that should be reported while in confession, they can encourage that person to speak to them in a different, safe place and to seek professional and legal help.
Now, Professor Movsesian has brought up another legal question, which is how the state differentiates between confidentiality in one setting versus another.
Movsesian discussed the bill with Catholic University law professor Marc DeGirolami. Professor DeGirolami said: "In this case, Washington allows secular privileges, like the attorney-client...
"The fact of including clergy in the same kinds of reporting requirements as everybody else I don't think is the singling out of religion, it's simply the inclusion of religion or clergy with respect to this reporting requirement that all others or a number of other professionals are subject to. That I don't think is a targeting issue. But, here it's the privilege issue, the privilege component that I think is the tricky part, so it allows secular privileges, like the attorney-client privilege, but it denies the religious equivalent."
DeGirolami went on to say: "Under the "most-favored nation" privilege of free exercise, that's a problem. That's the kind of discriminatory structure in a law that the court isn't going to look on favorably."
He said it is legally questionable to allow therapists or lawyers to retain confidentiality with their clients but not clergy. And that making a distinction between which professions are allowed this privilege could create an argument for the existence of religious discrimination.
Movsesian goes on to discuss another legal debate from 1813, People v Phillips, when a priest refused to testify in a case about stolen goods that were returned to him during confession.
Lawyers for New York State said that religion was no excuse for defying public safety. However, the judge ruled in favor of the priest, saying that the state could not force the priest to defy "one of the central ordinances of his faith."
The bill is being investigated by the Justice Department (DOJ), which says this bill conflicts with the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion in Washington State.
Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks at a news conference at the Justice Department, Feb. 12, 2025, in Washington.
Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks at a news conference at the Justice Department, Feb. 12, 2025, in Washington.
Ben Curtis, File/AP Photo
What People Are Saying
Marc DeGirolami, speaking on Legal Spirits: "If you let lawyers withhold the evidence, or if you let psychotherapists withhold the evidence, why aren't you letting clergy in the context of a confessional withhold evidence? ... if the interest is really compelling, either you want all the evidence or you're making some kind of judgment about which relationships deserve legal protection and arguably that's where religious discrimination comes in. But it's also a suggestion that your interest really isn't as compelling as you're saying it is because if it were you'd make no exceptions to it."
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said in a May 5 news DOJ news release: "[The law] demands that Catholic Priests violate their deeply held faith in order to obey the law, a violation of the Constitution and a breach of the free exercise of religion cannot stand under our Constitutional system of government.Worse, the law appears to single out clergy as not entitled to assert applicable privileges, as compare d to other reporting professionals. We take this matter very seriously and look forward to Washington State's cooperation with our investigation."
Jean Hill, executive director of Washington State Catholic Conference (WSCC), told Newsweek: "The WSCC supported the mandatory reporting legislation throughout its history in the Washington state legislature. Our only request was that the state uphold our state and federal constitutional rights to maintain the Seal of Confession, as required by Canon Law."
What Happens Next
The DOJ is taking Washington State to court over this law. It is unclear at this time whether it will take effect on July 27.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
36 minutes ago
Trump moves to block US entry for foreign students planning to study at Harvard University
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is moving to block nearly all foreign students from entering the country to attend Harvard University, his latest attempt to choke the Ivy League school from an international pipeline that accounts for a quarter of the student body. In an executive order signed Wednesday, Trump declared that it would jeopardize national security to allow Harvard to continue hosting foreign students on its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 'I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' Trump wrote in the order. It's a further escalation in the White House's fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. A federal court in Boston blocked the Department of Homeland Security from barring international students at Harvard last week. Trump's order invokes a different legal authority. Trump invoked a broad federal law that gives the president authority to block foreigners whose entry would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' On Wednesday, he cited the same authority when announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the U.S. and those from seven others would face restrictions. Trump's Harvard order cites several other laws, too, including one barring foreigners associated with terrorist organizations. In a statement Wednesday night, Harvard said it will 'continue to protect its international students.' 'This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights,' university officials said. It stems from Harvard's refusal to submit to a series of demands made by the federal government. It has escalated recently after the Department of Homeland Security said Harvard refused to provide records related to misconduct by foreign students. Harvard says it has complied with the request, but the government said the school's response was insufficient. The dispute has been building for months after the Trump administration demanded a series of policy and governance changes at Harvard, calling it a hotbed of liberalism and accusing it of tolerating anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard defied the demands, saying they encroached on the university's autonomy and represented a threat to the freedom of all U.S. universities. Trump officials have repeatedly raised the stakes and sought new fronts to pressure Harvard, cutting more than $2.6 billion in research grants and moving to end all federal contracts with the university. The latest threat has targeted Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students, who account for half the enrollment at some Harvard graduate schools. 'Admission to the United States to study at an 'elite' American university is a privilege, not a right,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X. 'This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the President's proclamation suspending the entry of new foreign students at Harvard University based on national security concerns.' Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called the measure ridiculous and said it has nothing to do with national security. 'It's a thinly veiled revenge ploy in Trump's personal feud with Harvard, and continued authoritarian overreach against free speech,' Jayapal said on the social media site X. The order applies to all students attempting to enter the United States to attend Harvard after the date of the executive order. It provides a loophole to allow students whose entry would 'benefit the national interest,' as determined by federal officials. Trump's order alleges that Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students in response to the Homeland Security request, and it lacked the detail to gauge if federal action was needed. Trump concluded that Harvard is either 'not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.' 'These actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government's ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law,' the order said. For foreign students already at Harvard, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will determine if visas should be revoked, Trump wrote. The order is scheduled to last six months. Within 90 days, the administration will determine if it should be renewed, the order said. A State Department cable sent last week to U.S. embassies and consulates said federal officials will begin reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism. In a court filing last week, Harvard officials said the Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion.' Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said in the filing. ___ ___
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Iran to Counter US Nuclear Offer as Trump Sends New Warning
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A senior Iranian official has announced that Tehran is drafting a counter-proposal to the latest U.S. offer on its nuclear program, rejecting the American plan as insufficient and "clumsy." The statement came as President Donald Trump warned time is running out for Iran to make a decision regarding its nuclear ambitions, revealing that Russian President Vladimir Putin may join the negotiations. Ali Shamkhani, a top advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told Lebanon's al-Mayadeen TV that the U.S. offer fails to address a primary demand, which is the lifting of sanctions. Newsweek has reached out to the State Department and Iran's foreign ministry for comment. Why It Matters The renewed push on negotiations underscores the urgency. While the U.S. seeks to curb Iran's uranium enrichment, Tehran is refusing to scale back without economic concessions. With Russia possibly entering the fray, the geopolitical stakes are rising in a region already mired in instability. Trump's framing of Iran's delay as deliberate "slow walking" adds new pressure to a rapidly narrowing diplomatic window. Iran's insistence on its "natural rights" could complicate efforts to revive a negotiated solution. Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran attends a meeting with the diplomatic advisor to the French president, in the Iranian capital Tehran, on July 10, 2019. - Iran has... Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran attends a meeting with the diplomatic advisor to the French president, in the Iranian capital Tehran, on July 10, 2019. - Iran has breached a uranium enrichment cap set by a troubled 2015 nuclear deal and warned Europe against taking retaliatory measures, as France decided to send an envoy to Tehran to try to calm tensions. MoreWhat to Know Ali Shamkhani criticized the U.S. proposal as poorly constructed and lacking critical elements. He said Iran was already working on a new response. "After receiving the American proposal regarding the Iranian nuclear program, we are now preparing our new counter-proposal," he stated. Shamkhani underscored that the absence of sanctions relief rendered the U.S. plan unacceptable. He called the omission a "fundamental" failure and reaffirmed Iran's position that it would never give up uranium enrichment, a key component of its nuclear program. 'Time Running Out' Meanwhile, Trump criticized Tehran for what he described as deliberate stalling. Writing on social media, he said, "It is my opinion that Iran has been slow walking their decision on this very important matter. We will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time." Trump also revealed that Putin could play a role in negotiations over Iran's nuclear ambitions, following an extended phone call between the two leaders. "We also discussed Iran, and the fact that time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly," Trump stated. Donald J. Trump Truth Social 06.04.25 01:56 PM EST — Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) June 5, 2025 Diplomatic Process Since early this year, the U.S. and Iran have resumed nuclear talks, mediated by Oman and Italy, aimed at reviving or replacing the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The JCPOA was a landmark agreement between Iran and six world powers—China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.—under which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions. In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the deal, calling it flawed and imposing a "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran. The current dialogue was reinitiated after Trump, who sent a letter to Iran expressing a willingness to negotiate. Talks have since been bogged down over core disagreements: Iran demands full sanctions relief and the right to continue uranium enrichment, while the U.S. seeks stricter curbs on Iran's nuclear activity. During the impasse, Iran has expanded its stockpile of enriched uranium, raising international concern. Donald Trump said August 15, 2020 he will try a controversial "snapback" to force a return of UN sanctions against Iran, after the Security Council rejected Washington's bid to extend the arms embargo against the... Donald Trump said August 15, 2020 he will try a controversial "snapback" to force a return of UN sanctions against Iran, after the Security Council rejected Washington's bid to extend the arms embargo against the Islamic republic. MoreWhat People Are Saying Ali Shamkhani, senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader: "There is no mention whatsoever of lifting sanctions in the latest American proposal, even though the issue of sanctions is a fundamental matter for Iran." President Donald Trump: "It is my opinion that Iran has been slow walking their decision on this very important matter." What Happens Next Iran is expected to unveil its counter-proposal in the coming days, setting the stage for a new round of diplomacy possibly involving Russia, as the U.S. presses for swift resolution on Tehran's nuclear future.
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Elon Musk Wasted Thousands Trying to Stop Trump Targeting Tesla in Tax Bill
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Despite hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on lobbying, Elon Musk's most famous company has failed to secure the survival of one of the most important pieces of legislation for its industry. So far in 2025, Tesla has spent $240,000 lobbying Washington in favor of the electric vehicle (EV) tax credit, along with other EV polices, but the policy remains on the chopping block if President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill" passes into law. Newsweek has contacted Tesla for more information on the issue via email. The Context The electric vehicle tax credit was introduced during Joe Biden's administration as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The credit, which was designed to encourage consumers to buy clean energy vehicles, offers up to $7,500 off electric car purchases, which benefits Tesla as the largest player in the U.S. market. What To Know The credit is in jeopardy because part of Trump's "big beautiful bill" removes the rebate entirely, bringing his tax policy more in line with the administration's skeptical stance on renewable energies. According to filings with the House of Representatives' clerk, Tesla has spent $240,000 on lobbying expenses this year for the credit, along with other industry areas such as "Autonomous Vehicle policies" and "Renewable Fuel Standards." Musk has become increasingly critical of the Trump administration's policies since leaving the White House at the end of May, but even before his departure, he raised concerns that the president was making moves that could impact his companies. Elon Musk in the Oval Office at the White House on May 30, 2025, in Washington D.C. Elon Musk in the Oval Office at the White House on May 30, 2025, in Washington D.C. Getty Images When Trump announced the "Liberation Day" tariffs that upended the global trade status quo, Musk said that the policies were harmful to the complex supply chains that tech companies like Tesla rely on for parts and expertise. "To be clear, this will affect the price of parts in Tesla cars that come from other countries. The cost impact is not trivial," Musk wrote on social media in response to the policy. "Important to note that Tesla is NOT unscathed here. The tariff impact on Tesla is still significant." What People Are Saying A spokesperson for Tesla wrote in a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative: "Even with aggressive localization of its supply chain domestically, certain parts and components are difficult or impossible to source within the United States." The company urged the agency to "consider the downstream impacts of certain proposed actions taken to address unfair trade practices." What Happens Next The bill that would remove the credit is currently awaiting approval from the Senate. It has already passed the House of Representatives, and Trump has said that he will sign it into law.
