Ministerial Exception Doctrine Requires Dismissal Of Priest's Interference With Contract Claim

In Tracy v. O'Bell, (PA Super., Nov. 5, 2021), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that the ministerial exception doctrine requires dismissal of a tortious interference with contract suit by Father Tracy, a Catholic priest, against three influential lay members of the Catholic parish which employed Tracy.  Tracy alleges that these members made false and defamatory statements to parish members and to the bishop in order to have him removed from his position after he discovered unexplained amounts of parish cash in a file cabinet under defendants' control. The court said in part:

[T]he First Amendment provides special protection to communications regarding the selection and retention of religious ministers.... [O]ur result does not insulate lay people from liability from defamatory statements against clergy. Nor do we deprive clergy of the ability to seek to redress all civil wrongs committed against them by lay people. We have no occasion to address those questions. Appellant’s complaint is very specific—he alleges that Appellees, through their communications with the local bishop and others, sought and successfully procured Appellant’s removal from ministry. Our holding is correspondingly narrow—Appellant’s allegations are inextricably intertwined with his removal from ministry, and therefore the trial court properly sustained Appellees’ preliminary objection based on the ministerial exception. 

Appellate Court Says Injunction Against Church Picketer Was Too Broad

In Tenth Presbyterian Church v. Snyder, (PA Super, Oct. 18, 2021), a Pennsylvania state appellate court held that the trial court was justified in issuing a preliminary injunction against Phillip Snyder, an excommunicated member of the church, who picketed the church every Sunday. However the appellate court held that the preliminary injunction's requirement that Snyder remain at least 5,000 feet from the church property was not narrowly enough tailored. The appellate court pointed out that Snyder had engaged in aggressive and agitated behavior that frightened Church members, and that he carried a concealed firearm. Nevertheless, it concluded:

[T]he trial court couched its preliminary injunction in the broadest terms to protect the interest of the Church and its members, disregarding Snyder’s constitutional right to protest the Church and its leadership. A five-thousand-foot restriction places Snyder well beyond the point at which his constitutional right to protest is utterly extinguished.  Put succinctly, the five-thousand-foot restriction is not “couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of public order.”

Bishop's Suit for Indemnification Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Kawimbe v. The African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., (ND GA, Aug. 27, 2028), a Georgia federal district court dismissed a suit by the Bishop of a church district covering part of South Africa.  The bishop's suit sought indemnification from the Church (a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation) for his successful defense before a church tribunal of charges bought against him by a minister in South Africa. The court held that the suit is not precluded by the ministerial exception doctrine because "the Church’s decision to deny Kawimbe indemnification does not implicate its right to select its ministers." The court concluded however that the suit should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, saying in part:

Under Pennsylvania law, if a representative of a non-profit corporation succeeds on the merits in an action or proceeding brought against him “by reason of” his representative status, the non-profit corporation must indemnify him...

To determine whether Kawimbe is or was a representative of the Church, the Court would be required to scrutinize “the composition of [the Church and AMEC’s] hierarchy,” including the nature of Kawimbe’s role as a bishop, which are matters of “core ecclesiastical concern.”...

[T]o determine whether the internal proceeding was brought “by reason of” Kawimbe’s role as a representative of the Church, the Court would have to consider the responsibilities and powers given to Kawimbe in his role as bishop and whether the accusations against him involved those responsibilities and powers. This inquiry would necessarily entangle the Court in matters of church governance. 

Dispute Over Church Vote On Hiring Pastor May Move Ahead

In Howard v. Heritage Fellowship, (VA Cir. Ct., June 30, 2021), a Virginia state trial court refused to dismiss a suit by five church members challenging the membership vote on employment of a senior pastor.  The court said in part:

... Plaintiffs bring suit in concern of whether "the Deacons Board's decision to finalize the membership roll after the results of the 2018 election was in compliance with Bylaws, Constitution and other applicable policies."... [N]one of this request requires the Court to delve into a religious thicket by reviewing religious principles of membership.... [T]here is no allegation ... of a doctrinal dispute between two factions, HFC also lacks an internal tribunal to decide conflicts.... Since HFC lacks internal tribunals to rule on such matters, civil court action is necessary to resolve this dispute.

The court also concluded that the ministerial exception doctrine does not apply, despite the fact that the dispute revolves around selection of the church's minister, saying in part:

Although the language of the ministerial exception does not explicitly state it cannot be applied to other scenarios, that silence does not mean it may extend to election issues. Here, Plaintiffs only ask for democratic, neutral principles of law to be enforced. The Court is not asked to determine whether Reverend Sullivan would make a good Pastor, or if he may stay within said position.

Canadian Supreme Court Refuses To Invalidate Archbishop's Expulsion of Church Members

In Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga, (Sup Ct Canada, May 21, 2021), the Supreme Court of Canada refused to invalidate an Archbishop's expulsion of five church members. The expelled members had been critical of the Archbishop's refusal to accept a recommendation of a committee investigating a movement which some saw as heretical. The members argued that their expulsions violated principles of natural justice because they had no opportunity to hear or contest the charges against them. The court held, however, that "there is no free‑standing right to procedural fairness with respect to decisions taken by voluntary associations." The court explained its decision:

Jurisdiction to intervene in the affairs of a voluntary association depends on the existence of a legal right which the court is asked to vindicate. Here, the only viable candidate for a legal right justifying judicial intervention is contract. The finding of a contract between members of a voluntary association does not automatically follow from the existence of a written constitution and bylaws. Voluntary associations with constitutions and bylaws may be constituted by contract, but this is a determination that must be made on the basis of general contract principles, and objective intention to enter into legal relations is required. In this case, evidence of an objective intention to enter into legal relations is missing. As such, there is no contract, there is no jurisdiction, and there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Canadian law however does permit courts to intervene in religious decisions more readily than America courts are willing to do, as illustrated by this summary by the Court:

[W]hile purely theological issues are not justiciable ..., where a legal right is at issue, courts may need to consider questions that have a religious aspect in vindicating the legal right.... For example, courts adjudicating disputes over church property may need to consider adherence to the church’s internal rules, even where those rules are meant to give effect to religious commitments.  

Law Times reports on the decision.

Court Continues 30-Year Old Church Factional Dispute

In Trustees of the General Assembly of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, Inc. v. Patterson, (ED PA, March 19, 2021), a Pennsylvania federal district court, in an 85-page opinion, granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the county sheriff from carrying out a Writ of Possession and Eviction Notice against plaintiff Church and Church Corporation which holds title to Church property. As explained by the court:

The instant action is one in a long line of other cases ... over the past three decades, in state court and federal court alike. The heart of each case is the same, though the procedural postures may differ. They all seek to resolve, once and for all, a question that has been posed since 1991, after the death of the late Bishop McDowell Shelton and the subsequent schism in the Church: Who gets to control the Church and Church Corporation and their assets?

The Writ of Possession at issue grew out of a 2006 Arbitration Award which was upheld in 2017. The court concluded, however, that the case giving rise to the arbitration award was between individual leaders of the two factions seeking control. Since the Church and the Church Corporation were not parties to that action, it was not binding on them. Thus a judgment is being enforced against them when they never had the opportunity to litigate the matter.

Injunction Governing Competing Factions' Access To Church Building Upheld

In Yakob v. Kidist Mariam Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Inc., (GA App., March 16, 2021), a Georgia state appeals court, in a dispute between the church's administrative board and its former priest Abba Yakov (who also served as Archbishop over several churches), reversed the trial court's grant of an interlocutory injunction to compel attendance of board members at board meetings. It held that the interlocutory injunction altered the status quo.  However the court affirmed the trial court's interlocutory injunction that gave access to the two factions to conduct services at different times. The challenged portion of that injunction dealt with Yakob's role during the times that the opposing faction had access. It provided:

Defendant Yakob may attend the Church’s services as a parishioner, but he is prohibited from presiding over, controlling, or attempting to preside over or control the Church’s services in any way. Defendant Yakob may enjoy the Church’s services from the pew, but he may not enter areas of the Church’s sanctuary for which access to parishioners is prohibited and may not participate in those services in any role other than as a parishioner.

The court concluded: 

[T]he complaint addresses itself to matters outside of First Amendment jurisprudence, such as issues of Church property and board governance issues. Given the Church’s hybrid form of governance ..., those property and governance issues are capable of resolution by reference to neutral principles of law. Importantly, nothing in the April 2017 injunction relates to the propriety or validity of Yakob’s termination as priest, or his role as Archbishop.

Church's Appeal of Bank's Interpleader Is Dismissed

United Community Bank v. Wakefield Missionary Baptist Church,  (NC App., March 16, 2021), involves a dispute over who is entitled to bank accounts of Wakefield Missionary Baptist Church on deposit at United Community Bank. The Bank filed an interpleader action. The church trustees sought dismissal on the ground that the dispute was an ecclesiastical matter requiring determination of who is a church member, and their roles and authority. As recounted by the appeals court:

The trial court granted the Bank’s motion for interpleader and discharge, ordering the Bank to relinquish all of the disputed funds to the Clerk of Superior Court to be held until further orders. The Bank complied.

The court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory, saying in part:

The interlocutory order granting interpleader does not impair the Trustee Defendants’ ... rights because the issue of who has control over the Church’s assets with the Bank is the very thing yet to be decided at the trial court.... The proceeding does not interfere with the Trustee Defendants’ substantial right to be free from ecclesiastical entanglement because the trial court can resolve the controversy based on neutral principles of law.

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari In Church Property Dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in two related cases, All Saints Episcopal Church v. Diocese of Fort Worth (Docket No. 20-534) and The Episcopal Church v. Diocese of Fort Worth (Docket No. 20-536), certiorari denied 2/22/2021. (Order List.) In the cases, the Texas Supreme Court resolved a factional property dispute between a break-away congregation and The Episcopal Church. It held that using neutral principles, property of the diocese belongs to the withdrawing faction that affiliated with the more conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. (See prior posting.)

Factional Dispute In Church Dismissed

 In New Covenant Church, Inc. v. Futch, (SD GA, February 5, 2021), a Georgia federal district court dismissed on qualified immunity, as well as other, grounds a dispute described by the court as follows:

This case arises from two feuding family factions which both lay claim to a small church in Brunswick, Georgia, one faction’s exclusion of the other from the church for a period of time, and several Brunswick police officers’ role in that exclusion....

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants [police officers] ... violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion ... by: allowing nonmembers of New Covenant to seize and lock it down for ten weeks; threatening to arrest New Covenant members who entered the property; preventing New Covenant members from worshipping; and permitting the Armstrong sisters and others to steal New Covenant’s property. ...

The court found that the officers did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, saying in part:

Defendants ... did not “regulate religious beliefs,” but instead “impose[d] restrictions affecting religious conduct” by allowing the church to be locked up.... The second threshold test is also satisfied; the facts show that Defendants’ actions were not “aimed at impeding religion,” but were instead aimed at maintaining the peace while the parties settled a bitterly contested property dispute.

The court also dismissed due process, 4th Amendment and false imprisonment claims.

Factional Dispute In Church Is Dismissed

 In St. John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flakes, (TX App., Nov. 30, 2020), a Texas state appeals court affirmed the dismissal, on ecclesiastical abstention grounds, of a suit between two factions of a church. One faction attempted to remove the pastor through a church meeting. The pastor refused to step down and the other faction continued to pay him. In dismissing the suit, the court said in part:

Texas courts have consistently held that the relationship between an organized church and its ministers is its lifeblood, and matters concerning this relationship must be recognized as of prime ecclesiastical concern.

The court similarly held that the questions of whether members excommunicated by one faction could enter the church and whether they could vote on sale of church property were also covered by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. 

Court Says Church Trustees Had Authority To Remove Pastor

In Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville, (MD App., Nov. 19, 2020), a Maryland state appellate court held that under the state's Religious Corporation Act, trustees of the church had the authority to remove its pastor. The court said in part:

Churches in Maryland formally organize as religious corporations and thus, the trustees, not the congregation, constitute the corporation....

Appellant ... argues that Shore Haven trustees lacked authority to terminate him because the firing of a church pastor is an ecclesiastical matter reserved to the church, not the trustees....

However, here, there was simply no evidence that the Board’s decision was based on disputes regarding religious doctrine, biblical interpretations or other ecclesiastical matters. As stated by appellee, “appellant’s personal behaviors, organizational shortcomings, inability to manage a breakdown in civility, and over-heated remarks about [a Shore Haven trustee] drove” the decision.

Pastor Was Validly Demoted and Terminated

In Kim v. Kwon, (CA App., Oct. 19, 2020), a California state appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that plaintiffs are validly elected directors of Irvine Baptist Church and that they validly demoted and then terminated senior associate pastor David Kwon. The court said in part:

The [Ordained Deacons Committee] ... acted within the scope of its authority under the Church Constitution when it demoted and terminated Kwon....

True, the trial court did not determine whether the ODC had valid grounds to demote or terminate Kwon based on his performance of his ministerial duties. But this is a different question than whether it had the authority to do so. And the court was right to tread lightly there. “The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as its California counterpart (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4), precludes civil courts from adjudicating [civil or] property disputes based on religious doctrine.” 

South Carolina Episcopal Parishes All Win Title To Their Property

In Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina v. The Episcopal Church, (SC Common Pleas, June 19, 2020), a South Carolina trial court was called upon to interpret a confusing decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court in a long-running property dispute that arose after a split in the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.  In a 2017 decision, the 5-member South Carolina Supreme Court in 5 separate opinions spanning 77 pages purported to resolve the factional property dispute. The trial court concluded that, under the state Supreme Court's decision, 36 parishes are the owners of their parish real estate and accompanying personal property. The court said in part:

This Court must distill the five separate opinions, identify the Court’s intent, and produce a logical directive. It must harmonize these opinions and find common ground among them. The issue is whether the 1979 Dennis Canon or any parish’s alleged accession to that Canon created a legally cognizable trust under South Carolina law....

At issue is ownership of real property, purchased and managed exclusively by the Plaintiff Parishes including land and buildings, considerable funds, and other personal property such as books, silver, and historical archives. The crux of the disagreement rests upon the Dennis Canon and its legal effect on whether this property was ever held in trust for TEC or TECSC....

This Court finds that the Plaintiffs merely promised allegiance to TEC and without more, this promise cannot deprive them of their ownership rights in their property. This Court finds no Parish expressly acceded to the 1979 Dennis Canon. The Dennis Canon was not mentioned by name in any of the evidence, and Defendants admitted that the Dennis Canon is not referenced in any of the deeds of parish property.... As a result, there is no trust created in favor of the Defendants, TEC and TECSC.

Christian Post reports on the decision.

Chabad's Messianist Movement Loses Battle Over Control of Synagogue Space

In a dispute that has been litigated since 2004, a New York state trial court in
Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the United States v. Congregation Lubavitch, Inc., (Civil Ct. City of NY, April 28, 2020), ruled that the formal owners of the headquarters of the Chabad movement in the United States may eject from its buildings a faction of the movement that has conducted religious services in the basement of the headquarters building for over 25 years. In its 144-page opinion, the court, relying on neutral principles of civil law rather than religious doctrine, gave a victory to the portion of the movement that rejects claims that the late rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson who died in 1994, should be referred to as the Messiah. The court said in part:

Rebbe Menchem Mendel Schneerson determined the power and authority granted to the owners of these properties, not this Court. His intentions and only his intentions were made clear by granting full authority to the owners, through Boards of Trustees, not the congregants or the Gabboim, over the religious corporation’s real property and personal property. This Court has the legal obligation to enforce the bylaws, religious corporation law and subsequent amendments to their contents. Just as the congregants had no legal rights to challenge the decision of the Board of Trustees to demolish a church, the congregation and the Gabboim have no legal rights to continue in possession after the Board of Trustees granted authorization tocommence these legal proceedings to recover possession of the subject premises by proper board action.

Anash.org reports on the decision.

Factional Dispute In Israelite House of David Is Dismissed

In Ferrel v. Israelite House of David, (MI App., April 2, 2020), a Michigan appellate court upheld a trial court's dismissal on ecclesiastical abstention and standing grounds a suit by a former member of the Israelite House of David against the two individuals who claimed to be among a handful of members of a religious organization whose history traced back over 100 years.  Plaintiff had surrendered his membership in a settlement agreement with the organization in 2013. According to the court:

Plaintiff stated that he is “perhaps . . . the only person who is a true believer in the religion of IHOD with the capacity to manage the assets to advance its religious purpose.” He alleged that “he may be the only party standing between continuation of IHOD doctrine and Defendant’s theft and destruction of the religion for personal gain.” On the basis of these allegations, plaintiff sought relief in various forms, including a declaratory judgment that defendants “have improperly and unlawfully diverted IHOD from its stated mission....

In affirming the dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

The trial court did not err by ruling that resolution of plaintiff’s claims would require a decision on matters of church doctrine and polity. Plaintiff argues that his complaint did not seek resolution of any religious issues but concerned a dispute about real estate. This statement is belied by an examination of plaintiff’s amended complaint.... Plaintiff maintained that, with the exception of William Robertson, who was elderly and may have suffered from dementia, “there are no proper members of IHOD.” Plaintiff further alleged that, unlike defendants, he was a true believer and “should be allowed to reestablish his membership as the only person committed to maintain the faith.”... 

The damages that plaintiff alleged are spiritual in nature.... [P]laintiff alleged that he was “deprived of the means and mechanisms necessary for the free exercise of his chosen religion,” “prevented from participating in the central tenet and goal of the religion—the ingathering of the flock of God,” and “deprived of the means to spread the gospel to others.” He also alleged that he has suffered “extreme emotional distress from the loss of the means to practice his religion and the specter of being deprived of salvation.”

"Neutral Principles" Approach Controls Issue of Joining Parent Church

In Korean New Life Methodist Church v. Korean Methodist Church of the Americas,(CO App., Feb. 6, 2020), a Colorado state appellate court held that the neutral principles of law approach should be used in deciding a dispute over whether a local church agreed to be under the authority of a national denomination.  It agreed that the trial court, using that approach, correctly determined that the local church never gave up control to submit to the authority of the parent church body, saying in part:

[W]e conclude that the question of submission does not involve a “religious dispute” covering ecclesiastical matters or involving church doctrine.... Rather, it involves an inquiry into the local church’s organizational intent as evidenced by church documents, testimony, and conduct.

Court Upholds Removal of Mosque's Finance Director

In Islamic Center of Passaic, Inc. v. Salahuddin, (NJ App.,Jan. 13, 2020), a New Jersey appellate court upheld the removal of defendant as finance director and member of the governing Shura Board of a New Jersey Islamic Center. Defendant was the wife of the founder and long-time spiritual leader of the Center. She clashed with the Center's new imam, refusing to allow him or the Shura Board to oversee her financial transactions on behalf of the organization.  The court said in part:

Here, the parties' claims arise from Islamic Center's constitution and bylaws and do not involve religious doctrine or practices. The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law concern whether Islamic Center complied with the procedures set forth in its organizational documents. Judge LaConte applied neutral principles of law to determine if Salahuddin was lawfully removed from office. Resolution of the parties' purely secular claims did not trespass on their religious freedoms.

With respect to Salahuddin's substantive claims, our scope of review of the judge's findings in this nonjury case is limited. We must defer to the judge's factual determinations, so long as they are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record....

[W]e are convinced there is substantial, credible evidence supporting Judge LaConte's findings of fact. We also agree with his legal conclusion Islamic Center complied with its constitution and bylaws when removing Salahuddin as finance director and Shura Board member.

Appeals Court Dismisses Suit To Enforce Board's Suspension of Church Pastor

In Stewart v. McCray, (IN App., Dec. 11, 2019), an Indiana state appellate court dismissed a suit seeking to enforce a suspension imposed by the Board of Directors of a Baptist church on its pastor. The trial court had found the pastor in contempt a the court's order enforcing the suspension.  As the court of appeals explained:

This matter stems from a years-long dispute between certain members of the congregation of the Canaan Baptist Church, in Elkhart, Indiana ... and its pastor, Reverend McNeal Stewart, III ... involving allegations that Rev. Stewart usurped the authority of the Church’s board of directors and disregarded the constitution and bylaws of the Church.....

The instant matter arises from Rev. Stewart’s suspension from his pastoral duties for his alleged failure to act in accordance with the Church’s Bylaws. Regardless of whether the parties, at times, failed to adhere to the Church’s Bylaws, at bottom, this is a dispute over the Church’s leadership. As such, this matter, at its core, is purely ecclesiastical and one which the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate.

Methodist Parent Body Sues SMU Over Attempted Split From Church Control

Suit was filed last week in a Texas state trial court by the regional parent body of the Methodist Church against Southern Methodist University alleging that SMU last month filed invalid amendments to its Articles of Incorporation purporting to eliminate the parent body's control over SMU's board of trustees, over amendments to SMU's Articles of Incorporation, and over sale of SMU's property.  The complaint (full text) in South Central Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Southern Methodist University, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 12/4/2019), alleges:

The November 2019 Articles make no mention of SCJC, much less any mention of the rights permanently guaranteed to SCJC by SMU’s governing documents. Instead, by deleting any mention of SCJC and its rights, the November 2019 Articles attempt to terminate all of SCJC’s rights and relationship with SMU without approval or authorization of SCJC for the amendment in Violation of SMU’s governing documents and the Trustees’ fiduciary duties to SCJC.

RNS, reporting on the lawsuit, says that the moves by SMU are "part of the latest fallout over the global denomination's decision earlier this year to strengthen language in its rulebook barring LGBTQ members from marriage and ordination."