I think you’re being grouchy and likely afraid of the national attention this case is sure to receive over the next few years.
The involvement of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and its Civil Rights Division in supporting Nick Rolovich’s lawsuit against Washington State University (WSU), as reported in posts on X, significantly strengthens his legal position in his claim that his religious rights were violated when he was fired in 2021 for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine based on his Catholic faith. Below is an analysis of what Rolovich potentially gains in court from the DOJ’s support, based on the information from X posts and available context:
### Context of the DOJ’s Involvement
- **Background**: Nick Rolovich, a former WSU football coach, was fired in October 2021 after refusing to comply with Washington’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for state employees. He sought a religious exemption, citing his Catholic faith, but WSU denied the exemption, stating it could not accommodate him without undue hardship. Rolovich filed a lawsuit in November 2022, alleging religious discrimination, breach of contract, and violations of civil rights, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the First Amendment. In January 2025, a federal district court ruled against him, finding no basis for his religious objection and stating that accommodating him would cause undue hardship to WSU.[](https://apnews.com/article/nick-rolovich-washington-state-covid-78897c11b90f934bf99bf3d42e34e108)[](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6044509/2025/01/07/nick-rolovich-washington-state-lawsuit-firing/)[](https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/43323303/nick-rolovich-loses-suit-washington-state-firing)
- **DOJ’s Action**: On or around June 20, 2025, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in support of Rolovich’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as reported in multiple X posts. These posts indicate that the DOJ is backing Rolovich’s claim that his right to freely exercise his faith was violated by WSU’s actions.[](https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1936166271533416488)
### What Rolovich Gains from the DOJ’s Support
1. **Increased Legal Credibility and Weight**:
- The DOJ’s involvement, particularly through an amicus brief filed by the Civil Rights Division, lends significant authority to Rolovich’s case. The DOJ’s participation signals that the federal government views the case as having broader implications for religious freedom and civil rights, potentially elevating its visibility and perceived merit.
- Courts often give weight to amicus briefs from government entities like the DOJ, as they reflect the government’s interpretation of federal law, such as Title VII or the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. This could influence the Ninth Circuit to scrutinize the district court’s ruling more closely.
2. **Strengthened Argument for Religious Discrimination**:
- The DOJ’s brief likely argues that WSU’s denial of Rolovich’s religious exemption violated his rights under federal law, such as Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, or the First Amendment, which protects free exercise of religion. The DOJ may contend that WSU failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for Rolovich’s sincerely held religious beliefs or that the university’s process was biased or coercive, as alleged in Rolovich’s lawsuit.[](https://becketfund.org/case/rolovich-v-washington-state-university/)[](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3896026/2022/11/14/nick-rolovich-washington-state-lawsuit/)
- Posts on X suggest the DOJ is framing WSU’s actions as an infringement on Rolovich’s right to freely exercise his faith, which could bolster his claim that the university’s decision was discriminatory rather than a neutral application of a vaccine mandate.
3. **Potential to Overturn or Remand the District Court’s Ruling**:
- The district court ruled that Rolovich’s objections to the vaccine were primarily secular, not religious, and that accommodating him would have caused undue hardship to WSU (e.g., increased travel costs, reputational damage, and health risks). The DOJ’s brief may challenge this, arguing that the court erred in dismissing Rolovich’s religious objections or misapplied the legal standard for “undue hardship” under Title VII.[](https://apnews.com/article/nick-rolovich-washington-state-covid-78897c11b90f934bf99bf3d42e34e108)[](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6044509/2025/01/07/nick-rolovich-washington-state-lawsuit-firing/)[](https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/43323303/nick-rolovich-loses-suit-washington-state-firing)
- If the Ninth Circuit agrees with the DOJ’s arguments, Rolovich could gain a reversal of the district court’s summary judgment or a remand for further proceedings, potentially allowing his claims to proceed to a jury trial, as his attorney has expressed hope for.[](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6044509/2025/01/07/nick-rolovich-washington-state-lawsuit-firing/)
4. **Broader Legal and Public Support**:
- The DOJ’s involvement could attract additional support from organizations or individuals advocating for religious liberty, as seen in the X posts expressing approval of the DOJ’s stance. This public and legal backing could pressure WSU to reconsider settlement or strengthen Rolovich’s position in negotiations.[](https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1936166271533416488)
- The DOJ’s brief may also cite precedents or legal frameworks that support broader protections for religious exemptions, potentially setting a favorable precedent for Rolovich’s case and others like it.
5. **Possible Financial and Professional Remedies**:
- Rolovich’s lawsuit seeks damages for loss of past and future income, punitive damages, and other costs. With the DOJ’s support, he may have a stronger chance of securing financial compensation if the court finds WSU liable for religious discrimination or breach of contract. His original tort claim sought $25 million, though the lawsuit itself does not specify an amount.[](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3896026/2022/11/14/nick-rolovich-washington-state-lawsuit/)[](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/nov/14/former-wsu-football-coach-nick-rolovich-files-wron/)
- A successful appeal could also restore some of Rolovich’s professional reputation, which was damaged by his firing and the public controversy surrounding it. This could aid his current role as an assistant coach at Cal or future career prospects.[](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6044509/2025/01/07/nick-rolovich-washington-state-lawsuit-firing/)[](https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/judge-sides-washington-state-rolovich-lawsuit)
6. **Advancement of Religious Freedom Precedent**:
- The DOJ’s brief, as noted in an X post by @GodsRiddles, suggests an appeal to the Supreme Court may be in view if the Ninth Circuit does not rule in Rolovich’s favor. The DOJ’s involvement could position the case as a significant test of religious freedom protections, especially in the context of vaccine mandates, potentially benefiting Rolovich by aligning his case with broader constitutional questions.
### Limitations and Challenges
- **Uncertain Outcome**: While the DOJ’s support strengthens Rolovich’s case, it does not guarantee success. The Ninth Circuit could uphold the district court’s ruling, agreeing that WSU’s actions were justified due to the public health context of 2021 or that Rolovich’s objections lacked a clear religious basis.[](https://apnews.com/article/nick-rolovich-washington-state-covid-78897c11b90f934bf99bf3d42e34e108)[](https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/43323303/nick-rolovich-loses-suit-washington-state-firing)
- **Scope of DOJ’s Brief**: The exact arguments in the DOJ’s amicus brief are not detailed in the X posts, so it’s unclear how narrowly or broadly it addresses Rolovich’s claims. For example, it may focus solely on the religious discrimination claim and not address breach of contract or wage issues.
- **Judicial Skepticism**: The district court’s ruling emphasized that Rolovich’s objections appeared secular (e.g., concerns about vaccine safety or conspiracy theories) rather than religious, and the DOJ would need to counter this with evidence of sincerely held religious beliefs. Additionally, courts have often upheld vaccine mandates as neutral and generally applicable, which could limit the impact of the DOJ’s arguments.[](https://apnews.com/article/nick-rolovich-washington-state-covid-78897c11b90f934bf99bf3d42e34e108)[](https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2023/05/30/nick-rolovich-washington-state-firing-lawsuit-mostly-dismissed/70271526007/)[](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4566207/2023/05/30/nick-rolovich-vaccine-lawsuit-dismissed/)
### Conclusion
The DOJ’s and Civil Rights Division’s support, as reported on X, provides Nick Rolovich with a stronger legal position in his appeal against WSU. He gains increased credibility, a bolstered argument for religious discrimination, a potential path to overturning the district court’s ruling, and broader public and legal support. If successful, he could secure financial compensation, professional vindication, and contribute to legal precedent on religious exemptions. However, the outcome remains uncertain, as the Ninth Circuit will evaluate the DOJ’s arguments alongside WSU’s defense that accommodating Rolovich posed an undue hardship. Rolovich’s legal team plans to appeal to the Ninth Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court, indicating a prolonged legal battle.[](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6044509/2025/01/07/nick-rolovich-washington-state-lawsuit-firing/)
**Note**: The information from X posts is treated as inconclusive and supplemented with web sources for context. For the full details of the DOJ’s brief, the court filings would need to be reviewed directly, as the X posts provide limited specifics.[](https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1936166271533416488)
