Suit Against Church for Negligent Retention of Pastor Can Move Ahead

 In Exum v. St. Andrews-Covenant Presbyterian Church, Inc., (NC App, Nov. 19, 2024), a North Carolina state appellate court held that claims for negligent retention, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty brought against a church do not need to be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine because they can be decided using neutral principles of law. Plaintiff and his wife attended St. Andrews-Covenant Church.  The church's pastor, Derek Macleod, entered a romantic relationship with plaintiff's wife. After plaintiff and his wife were divorced, Plaintiff sued the church and its parent bodies. The court said in part:

Exum alleges that St. Andrews-Covenant was negligent in allowing Macleod’s tortious conduct to occur because St. Andrews-Covenant knew or should have known that Macleod had engaged in similar misconduct in his capacity as a church leader in prior roles. ...

 “[T]here is no necessity for th[is] [C]ourt to interpret or weigh church doctrine in its adjudication of” Exum’s claims premised on alleged negligence in placing and retaining Macleod at St. Andrews-Covenant....  “It follows that the First Amendment is not implicated and does not bar” Exum’s claims against St. Andrews-Covenant....  As the Court in Smith [v. Privette] explained, a contrary holding “would go beyond First Amendment protection and cloak such [religious] bodies with an exclusive immunity greater than that required for the preservation of the principles constitutionally safeguarded.”....

9th Circuit En Banc Hears Fraud Claim Against LDS Church

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sitting en banc heard oral arguments in Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, James Huntsman, a prominent former member of the LDS Church who had contributed over $2.6 million to it, charged the Church with fraudulently misrepresenting the manner in which funds from tithes would be used. Huntsman says that the Church used tithed funds to finance a shopping mall and bail out of for-profit life insurance company after representing that the funds would not be used for commercial projects. A 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit rejected the Church's claim that the suit was barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. (See prior posting.) Deseret News reports in detail on the oral arguments.

Missouri Appeals Court Refers Question of Church's Duty of Supervision to State Supreme Court

 In Doe v. First Baptist Church of Pierce City, Missouri, (MO App., Sept. 2, 2023), a Missouri appellate court described plaintiff's claim:

Plaintiff asserts that FBC, a Southern Baptist religious institution, had a duty to supervise the youth ministries program members, including herself, while they were transported on a church van as part of that program, that FBC breached this duty by failing to either have or follow a policy to protect minors from sexual abuse, and that Plaintiff was injured as a result by the actions of a fellow youth ministries program member....

The court said that a prior state Supreme Court opinion, Gibson v Brewer, would call for dismissal of the case, saying in part:

Returning to the negligence claims at issue in Gibson, we must first address the negligent hiring/ordination/retention and negligent failure to supervise claims.  Our high court observed that “[q]uestions of hiring, ordaining, and retaining clergy . . . necessarily involve interpretation of religious doctrine, policy, and administration.”...  “Such excessive entanglement between church and state has the effect of inhibiting religion, in violation of the First Amendment” and “would result in an endorsement of religion, by approving one model for church hiring, ordination, and retention of clergy.”... Similarly ... “[a]djudicating the reasonableness of a church’s supervision of a cleric—what the church ‘should know’—requires inquiry into religious doctrine” and, as with the negligent hiring/ordination/retention claim, “would create an excessive entanglement, inhibit religion, and result in the endorsement of one model of supervision.” 

The court concluded, however:

We would affirm the summary judgment of the circuit court, but due to the general interest and importance of the issues on appeal, we transfer the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri pursuant to Rule 83.02.

Former Priest's Defamation Claim Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia v. Marshall, (VA App., July 16, 2024), a Virginia state appellate court held that a defamation per se claim by a former Episcopalian priest against a bishop who removed him from the ministry should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The former priest, Robert Marshall, allegedly made improper comments to a female employee. The court said in part:

We find that the defamation claim is inextricably intertwined with the disciplinary proceedings that led to the priest’s ouster.  In addition, the trier of fact would have to decide if the priest committed “sexual misconduct” within the meaning of canon law, which proscribes a broader swath of conduct than secular law....

Marshall claims that the bishop falsely stated that the investigator had “determined that the allegations had merit.” ... He says that the bishop falsely stated that Marshall had admitted to the improper conduct....  He pleads that Bishop Haynes also lied when she claimed that the church had followed the process required under ecclesiastical law....

[A]lthough Marshall denies that he wants a secular court to undo his defrocking, his defamation claim is so intertwined with the bishop’s deposing him as a priest that the defamation claim cannot be litigated without entangling the court in a religious dispute.  When a priest who has been fired sues the church and its leadership raising tort claims that cannot be unscrambled from the church’s decision to fire him, “the First Amendment has struck the balance for us.” ...  Churches have an overarching interest “in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” ... In order for a church to remain “free to choose those who will guide it on its way,” ... such tort claims must sometimes give way. 

... The trial court erred in concluding that Marshall’s claim for defamation per se against Bishop Haynes could be resolved on secular principles...

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses to Order United Methodist Conference to Allow Church Disaffiliations

In Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Montgomery v. Alabama- West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., May 31, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and dismissed a challenge by 44 Methodist congregations to a refusal by their parent Conference to allow the congregations to disaffiliate and retain their property. A few months before the congregations sought to disaffiliate, the Conference had changed its rules to provide that a member church could disaffiliate only after the Conference approved an eligibility statement that set out the reasons of conscience that led to the congregation's request. Prior to that, under a policy that was to expire at the end of 2023, congregations could disaffiliate and retain their property merely if they disagreed with the Chruch's policy on same-sex marriage and homosexuality. In affirming the dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

In order to grant the churches the relief they seek -- the right to vote on disaffiliation -- the trial court would have to survey the Judicial Council's ecclesiastical decisions, interpret the doctrinal scope of ¶ 2553 of the Book of Discipline, and review Conference determinations about the religious adequacy of the churches' eligibility statements.  That is, to decide any property questions, the trial court would have to adjudicate whether each of the churches had adequate "reasons of conscience...."  Resolving those issues would "inherently entail inquiry … into the substantive criteria by which [courts] are supposedly to decide the ecclesiastical question" -- whether the churches' reasons of conscience were sufficient for disaffiliation under ¶ 2553....   "But [that] is exactly the inquiry that the First Amendment prohibits."

Justice Bryan filed an opinion concurring specially which Justice Mitchell joined. Justice Cook filed an opinion concurring specially which Chief Justice Parker joined. Both opinions expressed sympathy with the churches' claim that the last-minute change in rules was engineered to prevent them from disaffiliating. Justice Mundheim filed an opinion concurring in the result, but not in the reasoning of the main opinion. Justice Sellers concurred in the result without filing a separate opinion. Justices Shaw, White and Stewart recused themselves.

Civil Court Must Accept Disciplinary Actions by Hierarchical Church's Parent Body

In San Jose Korean Central Church v. Korean Evangelical Church of America, (CA App., May 29, 2024), a California state appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, holding that a trial court was required to accept as binding internal disciplinary judgments by a church's parent body, Korean Evangelical Church of America (KECA).  At issue was an attempt by a local congregation, San Jose Korean Central Church (SJKCC) to disaffiliate from KECA. As explained by the court:

... [T]he board of SJKCC, led by its senior pastor, Francis Chung, purportedly approved new bylaws and voted to disaffiliate itself from KECA.  One week later, at a special meeting set by the board, the congregation ... approved the new bylaws and voted in favor of SJKCC’s disaffiliation from KECA.  Prior to these actions, however, KECA had issued a disciplinary judgment suspending Chung from performing his duties as an SJKCC board member.  KECA therefore contended that the purported actions taken by the SJKCC board, with Chung acting as its chairman ... were void.  As a result of Chung’s disobedience of the judgment of suspension, ... KECA entered a further disciplinary judgment revoking Chung’s SJKCCs pastorship and excommunicating him from KECA.  Shortly before that date, ... KECA entered a disciplinary judgment against two Chung allies, Ki Soo Kim, Jung Young Lee, removing their status as elders and as members of the SJKCC board....

... [I]t is plain that the May 26, 2019 judgment suspending Francis Chung—being a disciplinary action taken by the national hierarchical church, KECA, through the Judgment Committee of its Northern California District Conference—was an internal ecclesiastical decision that was not subject to review by the civil judicial system.  The rule of judicial deference to ecclesiastical matters applies not only to decisions related to matters of religious doctrine; it “also [applies to] issues of membership, clergy credentials and discipline, and church polity and administration.... The rule of deference to internal decisions of clergy discipline applies irrespective of whether the action taken was “by a procedure contrary to church law and regulations, and for improper, false and fraudulent motives.” ...

Alabama Supreme Court: Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply to Church Property Ownership Dispute

In Ex parte The Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., April 12, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the parent bodies of the Methodist Church in Alabama had not shown that an ownership dispute between them and a local church in Dothan, Alabama should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The Methodist Church's Book of Discipline required church deeds to contain a clause providing the property was held in trust for the parent church. The deed to the Dothan church did not contain such a clause. Four of the Court's 9 Justices recused themselves in the case, and two lower appellate court judges were appointed to sit with the remaining 5 regular Justices to hear the case.  In the opinion for the court written by Justice Cook and concurred in by three others, the Court said in part:

First, the AWFC and the GCFA's claim that this is a church dispute over ecclesiastical, rather than property, issues is premised on the erroneous assertion that "Harvest wants the [trial] court to create a new disaffiliation process just for Harvest contrary to church law." ...

Harvest's complaint does not seek judicial review of the disaffiliation procedure set forth in the Book of Discipline or otherwise ask the trial court to judicially declare that Harvest's vote to sever its affiliation with the UMC was consistent with the Book of Discipline's requirements....

Instead, the complaint asks that the trial court (1) to recognize that Harvest "alone is the absolute, full, exclusive, fee simple owner of all real or personal property that is owned by [Harvest], held for [Harvest], or titled in its name," (2) to declare that the UMC and the AWFC do not have "any trust, equitable, or beneficial interest in any of the real or personal property so owned by [Harvest],"....

Accordingly, Harvest's claim, on the face of the complaint, pertains solely to the ownership and control of the local church property -- an issue that civil courts generally can resolve by applying "neutral principles of law." 

Chief Justice Parker filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the result, saying in part:

While I believe that the main opinion accurately applies our precedents on the limited issue of church-property disputes, I believe that it goes too far in announcing a grand unifying theory applicable to all church-dispute cases that will unfortunately result in a loss of religious liberty. 

Justice Sellers filed an opinion concurring in the result, saying in part:

[I]n my opinion, once Harvest used the civil legal system to file its deed and organizational documents, it consented to have secular law applied to its filings and, thus, opened the door to have any property dispute resolved pursuant to neutral principles of law.

Special Justice Edwards concurred in the result. 

Alabama Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Church Property Dispute

 In Sails v. Weeks, (AL Sup. Ct., April 5, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court by a vote of 8-1, without an opinion for the majority, affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging the use and disposal of church property. Defendants contended that plaintiffs are not members of the church and thus could not bring suit on its behalf. Justice Mendheim filed a concurring opinion, saying in part: 

[I]t is inaccurate to attribute the genesis of the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine to the First Amendment. The delicacy with which courts approach church-dispute cases arose more organically from America's history of seeking to disentangle church denominations from state governance...

I believe that our invocation of the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine should come from a desire to protect religious freedom rather than an unfounded fear that religious ideas might taint our civil jurisprudence....

The Sails plaintiffs argued that the heart of this dispute concerns the alleged mismanagement or misuse of church property. However, I believe that the Sails plaintiffs' property allegations are a proxy for asking the courts to decide who controls the church -- an issue our courts lack the means and expertise to decide....

... "[T]he nature of the underlying dispute" is whether the Sails plaintiffs, who stopped attending the church several years ago, are still members of the spiritual church, who are the ones that ultimately control the incorporated church and the property it holds. In short, there is no way around the fact that, in this case, a decision concerning the use of the church property implicates the spiritual church because church membership is a spiritual concern. 

Justice Sellers filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Defendants ... moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, in part, that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an action on behalf of Union Baptist because, they claimed, Union Baptist was no longer a recognized legal entity under Alabama law because of the official name change that occurred in 2017....

... [C]hanging the name of a corporation, amending an organizational document, or reforming a deed involves the use of our civil legal system that by its very nature is not ecclesiastical.  The issue in this case then is who has the authority to act on behalf of the organization?  And, after identifying that issue, the question then becomes whether secular courts can decide that issue or whether that decision should be left to some ecclesiastical authority?  Because we have no ecclesiastical courts with enforcement authority, I am uncertain how the issue can be decided without court intervention. 

Civil Conspiracy Claims Against Religious Organization Survive 1st Amendment Defenses

In re Gothard, (TX App., Feb. 22, 2024), is a mandamus action that is essentially an appeal of a trial court's refusal to dismiss civil conspiracy claims against Institute in Basic Life Principles and its founder, William Gothard. Plaintiffs claimed that ILBP is a cult that "teachers distorted and heretical Christian doctrines" that led to their sexual abuse by their father and brother. The Texas state appellate court rejected Relators', i.e. defendants', First Amendment defenses, saying in part:

Gothard maintains that religious teachings and the publication thereof are constitutionally protected.  IBLP contends the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars RPIs’ cause of action. It argues that the “alleged religiously motivated conduct of IBLP is the advocacy and publication of religious beliefs.”  According to Relators, if RPIs’ claim is considered valid, any religious leader who speaks on religious topics and publishes his beliefs could be subject to a civil cause of action if a listener or reader improperly applies those beliefs in sexually abusing another person or committing some other unlawful act. ...

But the First Amendment does not bar all claims against religious bodies.,,,  A court may exercise jurisdiction over a controversy if it can apply neutral principles of law that will not require inquiry into religious doctrine, interference with the free-exercise rights of believers, or meddling in church government....

The relevant question is whether it appears certain that resolution of [plaintiffs']’ claims will require the trial court to address purely ecclesiastical questions.... IBLP represents that its teachings and materials are based on scriptures from the Bible, none of which “advocate sexual abuse or any other form of sexual immorality.”  Accordingly, by its own admission, IBLP’s teachings and materials do not advocate sexual abuse and consequently, the intentional tort of sexual assault that underlies the civil conspiracy claim is not rooted in religious belief.  ....

Because sexual assault is not part of Relators’ belief system, we cannot definitively say, based on the record before us, that this is a situation in which religious beliefs are so intertwined with a tort claim so as to unconstitutionally burden Relators’ rights and embroil the court in an assessment of those religious beliefs.

Court Supervision of Church Election Invalidated by Mississippi Supreme Court

In Melton v. Union Hill Missionary Baptist Church, (MS Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2024), the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and vacated a decision of a state Chancery Court in a dispute over whether a church had dismissed its pastor.  After an initial vote to oust the pastor, the pastor continued to preach at the church.  The church filed suit and the chancellor ordered the congregation to hold a second vote at a church meeting at which the chancellor would preside. That meeting voted to retain the pastor. Invalidating the chancellor's order to hold a new meeting, the Supreme Court said in part:

The chancellor’s self appointment to oversee a congregational election outside the courthouse and inside a house of worship is far removed from the judicial function and treads heavily upon Mississippi’s Constitution and the Establishment Clause. Thus, the chancellor’s actions, though undoubtedly well intended, amounted to a constitutional violation, resulting in a blending of church and state. This unusual arrangement was the antithesis of the constitutional doctrine that historically has demanded separation of church and state....

Because the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies, this Court reverses and vacates the orders of the Madison County Chancery Court.

Pastor's Breach of Contract Suit Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Craver v. Faith Lutheran Church, (TX App., Nov. 8, 2023), a Texas state appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a pastor's suit for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement brought against the church that was his former employer. After the church's executive board received complaints against the pastor, the church entered a severance agreement with the pastor. The pastor contends that the agreement included an assurance that the allegations against him would not be spread throughout the congregation. The court said in part:

Craver argues his case presents a “run-of-the mill” civil dispute, which can be resolved by application of neutral principles of law and without reference to religious matters. He contends: “While Faith Lutheran’s decision to terminate [him] is generally unreviewable, [his] claims have nothing to do with that and are instead about Faith Lutheran’s obligations under a secular, civil contract not to make certain statements.”

We disagree that church matters can be so cleanly and completely severed. Instead, the substance and nature of Craver’s fraudulent inducement and breach of contract claims are “inextricably intertwined” with matters of Faith Lutheran’s church governance.... [B]oth claims rely on circumstances surrounding contract formation and it is those circumstances which implicate the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine...

[W]e cannot untwine recommendations Church executives made in the course of church governance from the allegedly fraudulent representations that form the basis of Craver’s lawsuit.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply to Church's Fraud Claims Against Former Pastor

 In New Bethel Baptist Church v. Taylor, (TX App., Aug. 29, 2023), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent civil courts from adjudicating fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion claims against its former pastor who also served as the general contractor on a church construction project.  Plaintiff claims that the pastor withdrew $300,000 from the church's bank account without authorization. The court concluded that the claims can be resolved using neutral principles of law. the court said in part:

... [T]he resolution of these causes of action does not depend on the interpretation of New Bethel’s bylaws and constitutions or other relevant provisions of governing documents. Indeed, this is an example of a civil law controversy in which a church official happens to be involved....

However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suit because the attorney did not carry her burden of proof that she was authorized to represent the church. The court said in part:

... [R]egardless of how it is named or classified in the underlying suit, it is undisputed that there is only one church. Within this one church, there are two competing factions claiming control, i.e., the board of deacons and directors. With two competing factions claiming control of the church, attorney Robinson, as the challenged attorney, was either authorized to represent both entities, or she was not. In granting Taylor’s rule 12 motion to show authority, the trial court concluded that attorney Robinson failed to discharge her burden of proof to show her authority to act and nothing more.

Expelled Church Members' Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations

In Boyett v. First Baptist Church of Bossier, (LA App., Aug. 9,2023), a Louisiana state appellate court in a 2-1 decision affirmed the trial court's holding that Louisiana's statute of limitations (called "prescription" in Louisiana law) barred a suit by members who had been expelled from the church.  Plaintiffs claimed that the Articles under which they were expelled had been improperly adopted.  Judge Hunter dissenting argued that the majority applied the wrong statute of limitations, so that the trial court should reach the merits of the case using the "neutral principles of law" approach.  He contended that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not require dismissal of the case, and that the court should reverse the trial court's dismissal and remand the case for the taking of additional evidence.

9th Circuit: Fraud Claim Against LDS Church By Prominent Donor May Move Ahead

In Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (9th Cir., Aug. 7, 2023), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed a California federal district court's dismissal of a fraud claim brought against the LDS Church by James Huntsman, a prominent former member who had contributed over $2.6 million in tithes to the Church. The court described Huntsman's claim:

Huntsman alleged that the Church represented that tithing money was not used to finance commercial projects, but that, in fact, the Church used tithing money to finance a shopping mall development and to bail out a troubled for-profit life insurance company owned by the Church.

The court rejected the Church's claim that the suit was barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, saying in part:

In the case before us, we are not required to rely on or interpret the Church’s religious teachings to determine if it misrepresented how it was using tithing funds. Nor are we required to examine Huntsman’s religious beliefs about the appropriate use of church money. 

Instead, as presented to us, the questions are secular. The questions are whether the Church’s statements about how it would use tithing funds were true, and whether Huntsman reasonably relied on those statements when he made tithing contributions. A court or jury can answer these questions based on secular evidence and analysis.....

The majority then concluded that the district court had erred in granting summary judgment to the Church, saying in part:

The question before the district court, and before us, is whether a reasonable juror could conclude that the five statements by church officials and in church publications amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation by the Church.... Huntsman contends that a reasonable juror could conclude from the five statements that the Church fraudulently misrepresented that neither tithing principal nor earnings on tithing principal were being or would be used to finance the City Creek Mall project. We agree.

Judge Korman dissented in part, agreeing with the district court that no reasonable juror could find that the Church had misrepresented the source of funding for the mall project.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Bars Court from Deciding Dispute Over Parish Funds

 In Salado v. Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso, (TX App, Aug. 2, 2023), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevents the court from deciding whether funds raised by parishioners to build a new church building had been wrongfully misappropriated by the diocese. Parishioners had raised some $1.4 million, but the bishop decided that a new church should not be built and instead merged the parish with another one and transferred the funds to the new merged parish. The court said in part:

To resolve the dispute of whether the funds raised by the Parishioners on behalf of Sant Jose Parish were misappropriated when they transferred to the new Saint John Paul II Parish would require this Court to interpret Cannon Law and policies of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the rights and authority of bishops regarding the patrimony of a parish. Churches have a fundamental right “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government[.]”

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Bars Court From Interpreting Foundation's Bylaws

In Foundation for the Advancement of Catholic Schools, Inc. v. The Most Reverend Leonard P. Blair, (CT Super, June 15, 2023), a Connecticut trial court held that "the constitutional bar on court jurisdiction over religious matters" required it to dismiss a suit over interpretation of the bylaws of an organization that provides scholarships for students attending Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Hartford. At issue was whether the Archbishop could appoint Board of Trustee members other than those recommended by the Governance Committee. The court said in part:

Notwithstanding its formal status as a nonstock corporation, the court finds that FACS is a religious organization with ecclesiastical doctrine and practices. While FACS may be akin to a mutual fund in how it accepts contributions, diversifies assets, and distributes money, the mission and character of the organization is wholly marked by "clear and obvious religious characteristics."...

[T]he court cannot neutrally apply principles of corporate bylaw interpretation without intruding upon the archbishop's religious decision-making authority. Instead, the court is being asked to entangle the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut into matters of religious doctrine, religious practices and church polity.

Suit By Florida Breakaway Methodist Churches Is Dismissed

In Grace United Methodist Church Inc. v. Board of Trustees of FL Annual Conf of UMC Inc., (FL Cir. Ct., April 18, 2023). a Florida state trial court dismissed a suit by 71 Methodist congregations throughout Florida which seek to break away from their parent body because of their objections to United Methodist Church allowing bishops and clergy to officiate at same-sex weddings and to be openly gay. The congregations want to reaffiliate with the more conservative Global Methodist Church. Current UMC rules impose substantial financial costs on congregations seeking to disaffiliate. The court concluded that, under Florida precedent, it must defer to decisions of church hierarchical bodies. It also concluded that actions to determine title to property must be brought in local courts covering the jurisdiction in which the property is located. The court added:

[C]onsidering the recent clarifications from the Supreme Court of the United States on matters of discrimination and unequal treatment based on religious status, along with the abrogation of Lemon v. Kurtzman ... it seems to the Court that merely deferring to the UMC on all matters and denying the Plaintiffs access to the courts to litigate neutral property and trust matters does not meet the strictest scrutiny. Nevertheless, the Court is bound to follow the law as established by the higher courts in the State of Florida.

UM News reports on the decision.

185 Methodist Churches in Georgia Sue Parent Body Seeking Disaffiliation

 At the end of last month, 185 Methodist congregations in Georgia filed suit in a Georgia state trial court against their parent body and its officials.  The congregations are attempting to disaffiliate from the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church pursuant to a provision (❡2553) added to the Church's Book of Discipline in 2019.  The provision, which applies to disaffiliations completed by the end of 2023, allows disaffiliating congregations to keep their real and personal property.  The complaint (full text) in Carrollton First United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Trustees of the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (GA Superior Ct., filed 3/30/2023), alleges in part that: 

Defendants have conspired to "run out the clock" on Plaintiffs ability to utilize ❡2553 by a combination of ultra vires actions, fraudulent misrepresentations, and promises which they have failed to keep so that, unless this court intervenes, Plaintiffs cannot and indeed will not be allowed to fulfill the legislated requirements of ❡2553 in time to meet the sunset date of 12/31/23.

The complaint also alleges that the parent body is no longer allowing disaffiliating churches a credit for their share of a $23 million pension plan reserve fund.

In introductory paragraphs, the complaint contends:

This case can be resolved in accordance with secular Georgia law ... without interfering with the separation of church and state.... Defendants cannot be heard to contest this point, as Defendants have availed themselves of the same principles recently in a substantially similar context in this very court....

UM News, reporting on the lawsuit, says in part:

The lawsuit ... involves more than a quarter of the North Georgia Conference’s nearly 700 congregations. 

It’s also the most congregations that have banded together in a single lawsuit since the denomination began undergoing a slow-motion separation after decades of intensifying debate over LGBTQ inclusion.

Pastor's Defamation Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In Weems v. Celebration Church of Jacksonville, Inc., (FL Cir. Ct., Sept. 28, 2022), a Florida state trial court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation lawsuit by the former pastor of Celebration Church. At issue is a report growing out of an internal investigation of the pastor commissioned by church trustees.

Plaintiffs’ current pleading invites this Court’s entanglement into Celebration Church’s internal matters....

In order to determine whether Celebration Church defamed Pastor Weems as currently alleged, this Court would need look to the time Pastor Weems was employed by the Church to see whether he did or did not partake in the actions as alleged by the Church and whether those actions were forbidden by the Church's bylaws and other internal policies.

Florida Times-Union reports on the decision.

Messianic Jewish Missionaries May Proceed With Their Defamation Suit

In One for Israel v. Reuven,(SD FL, Sept. 26, 2022), a Florida federal district court in a defamation case held that Messianic Jewish missionaries are not necessarily "limited public figures" who must prove "actual malice" to succeed in a defamation suit. Refusing to dismiss the suit, the court held that the theological conflict between Judaism and Christian missionaries is not a public controversy. At issue in the case was a YouTube video in which defendant, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, claimed that the missionaries beat up another rabbi at a meeting with an individual who was considering converting to Messianic Judaism. The court also rejected the claim that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of the suit. The court said in part:

The statements said in the video have nothing to do with religion; they were about a violent attack that did not happen. These issues have nothing to do with religious doctrine or conflict.

Volokh Conspiracy has more on the decision.