Case Explained: COLOMBO, ET AL. V. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

Docket: 3:24-cv-05887-DGE

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all federal claims brought by WDNR firefighters against the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and Commissioner Hilary Franz, as well as the dismissal of state law claims without prejudice. The court held that WDNR is an arm of the State of Washington entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; consequently, the agency’s dismissal with prejudice was proper as no amendment could cure this defect. Regarding Commissioner Franz in her official capacity, the court ruled that sovereign immunity bars damages claims and that injunctive relief is unavailable because the vaccine mandate had been rescinded more than a year prior to the filing of the lawsuit, leaving only redress for past harms. For claims against Franz in her personal capacity, the court applied the qualified immunity standard, ruling that no constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct. The court found that precedents regarding restrictions on group worship were meaningfully distinct from vaccine mandates with accommodation processes, and that a reasonable official would not have understood the mandate to violate the Free Exercise Clause. Similarly, the court held that qualified immunity protected Franz against Equal Protection claims because governing precedent had not specifically addressed these factual circumstances, and against Due Process claims because WDNR’s exemption process provided sufficient notice and an opportunity to respond as required by *Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill*. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims and rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that oral argument was necessary.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.