Seattle event permit requirements remain in place for Christian group’s rally

(CN) — A federal judge found no reason on Wednesday to block Seattle from enforcing its special event permit requirements against a Christian revival group who say a previous permit denial led to members being attacked at a different venue.

Senior U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein said in a mixed-bag ruling the organizers of the MayDay USA event didn't have standing to pursue a preliminary injunction against the city.

“It remains necessary for plaintiffs to allege a credible or substantial risk that the law in question will be enforced against them.” Rothstein, a Jimmy Carter appointee, wrote. “Here, the dearth of allegations of intended future conduct, threat of future enforcement, or self-censorship, clearly does not satisfy a pre-enforcement injury in fact.”

The plaintiffs sued in September 2025, claiming violations of their free speech, right to peaceable assembly, and free religious exercise under the First Amendment, and a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs — including a Washington state pastor, leaders of the Christian Her Voice Movement and other MayDay organizers— say they received a permit from the Seattle Parks Department to hold a “worship and prayer” event at Cal Anderson Park on May 24, 2025, after being denied a permit by the city to have the event on Pike Street, which is known as a hub of the LGBTQ+ community in Seattle.

At the Cal Anderson Park event, the plaintiffs say protesters came to the park to “agitate, disrupt, and assault plaintiffs for their views, message, and content of their event,” which denounced LGBTQ+ lifestyles and opposed abortion.

While protesters were at the park, Seattle police officers told event organizers to shut down the event, due to a possibility of violence.

On the same day, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell’s office released a press statement calling the plaintiffs' event an “Extreme Right-Wing Rally,” and saying the plaintiffs were responsible for the violence.

The plaintiffs said the statement violated their rights under the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and claimed Harrell was hostile toward them because it was a religious event.

Rothstein declined the city's attempt to dismiss the establishment clause claim. While she said the permitting ordinance doesn't discriminate based on the content of an event and evidence showed the denial was based only on the large size of the proposed event, Harrell's words kept the claim alive.

“These statements were made in formal press releases from the ‘Office of the Mayor,’” Rothstein said. “Official expressions of hostility directly connected to plaintiffs and their event, combined with the supporting hostile statements made by city religious leaders that are officially approved by the city, can have the effect of showing that the city is failing its duty of neutrality, invalidating the facial neutrality of an ordinance.”

Attorney for the plaintiffs Daniel Schmid of Liberty Counsel said he would be discussing an appeal of the injunction portion of the order, but praised the ruling on the establishment clause.

“While the court’s analysis of the standing issues is incorrect, it was correct in its adjudication of the establishment clause claims,” Schmid said in an email. “There is no world in which the First Amendment permits the government to constitutionally orphan a religious event to a location it did not request, allow the organizers and attendees of that event, including children, to be violently attacked by a riotous mob, and then blame the victim of the violence for the exercise of their protected First Amendment rights.”

Rothstein said dismissing the establishment clause claim was unnecessary while the religious groups' free speech and free exercise claims are proceeding.

The Seattle City Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.