Former Spokane Mayor Nadine Woodward Seeks $10 Million From City Over Censure Tied to Prayer Event
Why It Matters
A legal dispute in Spokane, Washington is raising significant constitutional questions about the limits of legislative power over elected officials and whether a city council can punish a mayor for attending a public religious and political gathering. The case could set a precedent for how municipal governments in Washington state — and potentially across the country — handle the political speech and associations of their elected leaders.
Former Mayor Nadine Woodward argues she suffered lasting personal and professional harm from a censure resolution she says amounted to government-sanctioned character assassination rooted in political disagreement over her faith-based activities.
What Happened
Woodward’s attorney filed an amended tort claim with the city of Spokane in mid-April, raising the amount sought from an original $1.5 million to $10 million. The claim targets both the city of Spokane and four City Council members who voted in favor of the censure resolution in August 2023.
The dispute began when Woodward appeared on stage at a Let Us Worship event in Spokane organized by pastor Sean Feucht. The event also featured former Washington state legislator Matt Shea — a figure who was removed from the Republican House caucus in 2019 after being labeled a domestic terrorist who posed a threat of political violence. During the event, Shea blessed Woodward and the two embraced as she walked off stage, a moment captured on video and widely broadcast.
Shortly afterward, the Spokane City Council passed a resolution publicly denouncing Woodward’s attendance. Three months later, in November 2023, Woodward lost her reelection bid to Democrat Lisa Brown, a former state legislative leader. Woodward, who now works as a real estate agent, filed her initial tort claim in 2024 and subsequently hired attorney Mary Schultz to pursue the expanded case.
Woodward maintained she had not known Shea would be present and believed the event’s purpose was to pray for victims of nearby wildfires. Shea disputed that account, posting on social media that the event was “planned months ago to worship Jesus” and that Woodward had accepted an invitation before the fires began. After her attendance became public, Woodward denounced Shea as a threat to democracy and distanced herself from his views.
City spokeswoman Erin Hut declined to comment on the new claim.
By the Numbers
- $10 million — total damages sought in the amended tort claim filed in mid-April 2026
- $1.5 million — amount sought in the original tort claim filed in 2024
- 4 — City Council members named as defendants in the claim
- August 2023 — date of the censure resolution passed by the Spokane City Council
- 2019 — year Matt Shea was removed from the Washington House Republican caucus
The Constitutional Argument
Woodward’s attorney, Mary Schultz, argued that neither the federal nor Washington state constitutions permit legislators to punish local officials for “listening to whatever political or religious views are being discussed in our community.” The amended claim asserts that the council members violated Woodward’s constitutional rights through an abuse of legislative power.
The claim alleged that the censure “resulted in harassment by the media, estrangement from her social group, supporters and neighbors, and loss of business and professional opportunities.” Woodward described the censure as a “scarlet letter” and contended she continues to “suffer ongoing injury, including vitriol, backlash and threats.” In addition to monetary damages, Woodward is asking the court to declare the censure resolution unconstitutional and order that it be vacated.
Zoom Out
The Woodward case reflects a broader national pattern of escalating political conflict at the local government level, where city councils and other municipal bodies are increasingly using formal resolutions and censures to target political opponents. A recent recall effort against Washington’s governor underscored the intensity of political tensions in the state. Critics of censure proceedings argue they have become tools of political intimidation rather than legitimate oversight mechanisms.
The case also highlights tensions between elected officials’ First Amendment rights — including the freedom to attend religious gatherings — and the political accountability structures of local government. Washington state has seen several high-profile clashes between local officials and their councils in recent years, raising questions about the appropriate boundaries of legislative authority at the municipal level.
What’s Next
With the amended tort claim now on file, the city of Spokane will need to formally respond. If the city declines to settle or does not act, the case is expected to proceed toward litigation. Schultz’s strategy appears focused on obtaining a court declaration that the censure was unconstitutional — a ruling that, if granted, could have implications for how city councils across Washington state exercise their censure authority going forward.
About the Author
