The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Washington state defendants, in an action brought by Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington (“Cedar Park”), alleging that Washington’s Reproductive Parity Act of 2018 (the “Parity Act”) and Washington’s thirty-year-old conscience statute violate the Free Exercise Clause and Cedar Park’s right to religious autonomy.

The Parity Act requires insurance carriers to include, in the health plans that they offer, coverage for all federally approved contraceptives and, if maternity care is covered, for abortions. The Parity Act’s 2019 implementing regulations do not diminish or affect any rights provided under Washington’s conscience statute, which shields an employer that buys health insurance from any requirement to purchase coverage for a health care service to which the employer objects on either religious or moral grounds. Thus, notwithstanding the Parity Act, the conscience statute enables health carriers to accommodate religious or moral objections to abortion by offering tailored health plans that exclude coverage for abortion services.

Cedar Park is a church that objects, on religious grounds, to abortion and to some forms of contraception. As an employer, Cedar Park purchases for its employees group health insurance that covers comprehensive maternity care. Cedar Park challenges the validity of the Parity Act and the conscience statute, alleging the laws violate the Free Exercise Clause and the Church Autonomy Doctrine to the extent that they require Cedar Park to provide coverage for, pay for, or facilitate access to abortion and certain contraceptives, either directly or indirectly.

In a prior opinion, the panel held that Cedar Park failed to prove standing on the summary judgment record, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of standing. However, after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, 606 U.S. 100 (2025), the panel vacatedits opinion and reheard oral argument.

The panel first held that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond, Cedar Park’s contention that the Parity Act caused it to facilitate abortion indirectly suffices to establish Article III standing.

Turning to the free exercise claim, the panel assumed, without deciding, that Cedar Park established that the challenged laws burden its religious exercise because Cedar Park presently cannot acquire an abortion-excluding plan that it believes would insulate it from the possibility of facilitating access to abortion.

The panel next held that the challenged laws are neutral and generally applicable. As to neutrality, the panel considered the stated objects, text, surrounding circumstances at the time of enactment, and real-world operation, and held that Cedar Park failed to show that the challenged laws target religious conduct or are otherwise the product of hostility toward religion. The panel next analyzed the challenged laws for underinclusiveness and individualized exemptions and concluded that the laws are generally applicable.

Because the challenged laws are neutral and generally applicable, rational basis review applies and Cedar Park concedes that the laws satisfy that standard. Accordingly,the panel held that Cedar Park’s free exercise claim fails.

Finally, the panel held that the challenged laws do not violate the church autonomy doctrine because the statutes in question do not deal with employment at the church itself or with matters of internal church governance.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Callahan agreed with the majority’s conclusion that Cedar Park has standing to sue Washington, but stated the majority erred in holding that Washington’s law is consistent with the Constitution. In her view, Washington’s law burdens Cedar Park’s religious exercise, is neither neutral nor generally applicable, and cannot satisfy the high bar of strict scrutiny. The law thus runs afoul of the First Amendment.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/14/23-35585.pdf