The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the arbitration clauses that relegated plaintiffs' to the Church's internal arbitration procedures are procedurally unconscionable. It held that even though the Church did not have detailed arbitration rules, the procedures in the Enrollment Applications are minimally adequate. It also concluded that the clauses are broad enough to cover all disputes, not just those related to the Enrollment Applications.
Finally the court held that the First Amendment precludes it from considering plaintiffs' claim that they cannot receive a fair hearing because they have been declared "suppressive" by the Church, and Scientologists in good standing are prohibited by Church doctrine from communicating with suppressive individuals. The court said:
As compelling as Plaintiffs' argument might otherwise be, the First Amendment prohibits consideration of this contention, since it necessarily would require an analysis and interpretation of Scientology doctrine. That would constitute a prohibited intrusion into religious doctrine, discipline, faith, and ecclesiastical rule, custom or law by the court....Tampa Bay Times and The Underground Bunker report on the decision.