Religious Freedom

sean feucht v city of spokane, wa

Can a City Council condemn an Official for attending a religious event?  No. 

BACKGROUND

On August 20, 2023, Sean Feucht came to Spokane for his Let Us Worship event, a time of worshipping Jesus, seeking repentance and redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and praying for our nation. Sean was joined by thousands from the area, including Spokane City Mayor, Nadine Woodward, who received prayer and encouragement. How did the City Council respond to this constitutionally-protected and positive event? The response of Spokane, Washington to Mr. Feucht’s presence, prayer, worship and preaching of the gospel was for its City Council to condemn his beliefs, worship, speech, and prayer, which it did through the preparation, drafting, and adoption of Resolution No. 2023-0081, adopted September 25, 2023.

What is Resolution No. 2023-0081? This resolution was introduced by Spokane City Council members Zack Zappone and Betsy Wilkerson to “formally denounce” the Spokane City Mayor, Nadine Woodward, for associating with Sean Feucht at his August 20, 2023 worship event. This obvious overreach was, in fact, pointed out by former Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney, Don Brockett, prior to the adoption of the resolution.

“I hope you will seriously re-consider taking any action against Mayor Woodward because of what may be the unintended results. I’m sure you remember the saying that ‘what goes around comes around’ and what may result if you continue with your plan is that people may wrongly judge every meeting or encounter you may have with a member of the public and question if it was legitimate or appropriate.”

Not only that but the Attorney for Spokane, Washington told the Spokane City Council that this resolution was not the correct mechanism to deal with any problems it had with the mayor. Despite this sound advice, Zack Zappone, Lori Kinnear, Betsy Wilkerson and Karen Stratton all voted to pass the resolution that “denounces her [Mayor Woodward] preplanned attendance that associates her with known anti-LGBTQ extremist, Sean Feucht, and hateful rhetoric.”

Silent Majority Foundation Filed this Complaint with the Following Claims:

• 1. First Violation of the United States Constitution: Freedom of Religion. The United States Constitution First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and this is applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is known as the “Free Exercise Clause.” See: Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407, 2421, 213 L.Ed.2d 755, 771 (2022). Resolution No. 2023-0081 was passed to target and burden Sean Feucht’s sincere religious practice.

• 2. Second Violation of the United States Constitution: Freedom of Speech. That the First Amendment doubly protects religious speech since it is an outgrowth of the framers’ distrust of government attempts to regulate religion and suppress dissent. “In Anglo-American history, . . . government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.” (Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407, 2421, 213 L.Ed.2d 755, 770 (2022)) Sean’s August 20, 2023, speech was constitutionally protected worship, association, and speech.

• 3. Declaratory Relief that Resolution No. 2023-0081 is Not Within the Spokane, Washington’s Right to Speak. Wash. Const. art. I §11 requires the government to guarantee the freedom of religious conscience to every individual; this guarantee prohibits the City of Spokane, Washington, and its various council-members from expending publicly funded City Council time deliberating, discussing, or dictating which religion and/or religious practices is/are appropriate and approved in Spokane, Washington. Resolution No. 2023-0081 declared the religious views of certain people to be acceptable or unacceptable.

• 4. Washington Constitution Claims. Every person in Washington has an “[a]bsolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, [and] belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion.” (WA Const. art. I §11).

• 5. Declaratory Relief that Resolution No. 2023-0081 Was Outside the Authority of the Spokane City Council.
  The Spokane City Council had no authority or legitimate basis for passing the Resolution against Mr. Feucht.
  Admonishing or formally condemning is not provided for under the Spokane City Charter.
  The council had been provided legal advice that the Resolution had no legitimate basis.

• 6. Declaration that There is No Legislative Immunity for the Individual Defendants. We have requested the court to declare that the government (Spokane, Washington) cannot defend or indemnify Defendants Zappone, Kinnear, Wilkerson, and Stratton for this suit. Resolution No. 2023-0081 did not bear the hallmarks of traditional legislation. It had nothing to do with budgets, or the provision of services. It was also not the correct use of the legislative power to deal with any issues that Spokane, Washington or its four city council-members had with the mayor. The only policy the Resolution could have set is an establishment of orthodoxy in religion, which is not traditional legislation in our country or state.

Our client, Mr Feucht does not take this action to vindicate himself or his religious beliefs - he needs no vindication - but to vindicate Washington and the United States Constitutions. This action also serves to secure the blessings of liberty, including free speech, association, and religion to the people of Spokane, Washington. We are honored to stand with Mr. Feucht as he stands for the rights of all Spokane citizens to freely practice their religion and to speak freely.