Ministerial Exception Is No Defense to Child Labor Trafficking Claims

In Zan Sun v. Shen Yun Performing Arts, Inc., (SD NY, May 18, 2026), a New York federal district court held that the ministerial exception doctrine is not a basis for dismissing claims by two Falun Gong practitioners who allege that they were held in forced child labor by a classical Chinese dance and musical company based in New York. Plaintiffs allege that their treatment violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The court said in part:

... Defendants argue that because Falun Gong is a “religion,” Dragon Springs is a “church,” Shen Yun is Falun Gong’s “evangelistic ministry,” and Plaintiffs were its “ministers” who used “performance art to share religious principles and the prospect of salvation with the world,” the ministerial exception bars all of Plaintiffs’ claims.... Plaintiffs counter that none of the Defendants are religious institutions and that Falun Gong is not a religion.... The Court, however, need not decide this dispute—even if it could on a motion to dismiss....

The ministerial exception “does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws,”... Instead, the exception is limited: It “protect[s]” religious institutions’ “autonomy with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to [their] central mission.” ...  A “church’s independence on matters ‘of faith and doctrine’ requires the authority to select, supervise, and if necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities”.... 

Plaintiffs’ allegations of abuse, forced labor, and human trafficking do not implicate “matters of faith and doctrine” or “matters of internal government.” Plaintiffs claim they were subject to grueling training and work schedules with little pay, denied medical care when injured, prevented from leaving Dragon Springs, and subjected to other forms of psychological abuse that began when they were children. Accepting these allegations as true ... Defendants still retain the authority and independence to “select, supervise, and . . . remove [their] minister[s].” ... Matters of “faith,” religious “doctrine,” and ecclesiastical “government” have no bearing on alleged abuse, control, and confinement in between employment decisions....

... Defendants ... claim that, at most, what Plaintiffs allege they experienced is what one might expect at an elite dance academy or a boarding school.... [T]o the extent Defendants intend to prove that Plaintiffs were treated in the way they characterize, the resolution of this factual dispute does not implicate matters of faith and doctrine. It does not require interference with Defendants’ internal governance or even their right to choose ministers....

Vatican Releases Declaration on Human Dignity

 On April 8, the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith published a Declaration on Human Dignity, “Dignitas Infinita" (full text).  An introduction to the Declaration by the Prefect of the Dicastery says in part:

The five-year course of the text’s preparation helps us to understand that the document before us reflects the gravity and centrality of the theme of dignity in Christian thought. The text required a considerable process of maturation to arrive at the final version that we have published today.

In its initial three sections, the Declaration recalls fundamental principles and theoretical premises, with the goal of offering important clarifications that can help avoid frequent confusion that surrounds the use of the term “dignity.” The fourth section presents some current and problematic situations in which the immense and inalienable dignity due to every human being is not sufficiently recognized. The Church sees the condemnation of these grave and current violations of human dignity as a necessary measure, for she sustains the deep conviction that we cannot separate faith from the defense of human dignity, evangelization from the promotion of a dignified life, and spirituality from a commitment to the dignity of every human being.

The items described at length in the fourth section as "grave violations of human dignity" are the drama of poverty, war, travail of migrants, human trafficking, sexual abuse, violence against women, abortion, surrogacy, euthanasia and assisted suicide, marginalization of people with disabilities, gender theory, sex change and digital violence. The document's discussion of gender identity has perhaps created the most controversy. The Document says in part:

It needs to be emphasized that ‘biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated.’” Therefore, all attempts to obscure reference to the ineliminable sexual difference between man and woman are to be rejected: “We cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore.” Only by acknowledging and accepting this difference in reciprocity can each person fully discover themselves, their dignity, and their identity....

It follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception. This is not to exclude the possibility that a person with genital abnormalities that are already evident at birth or that develop later may choose to receive the assistance of healthcare professionals to resolve these abnormalities. However, in this case, such a medical procedure would not constitute a sex change in the sense intended here.

Asked at a Press Gaggle (full text) about President Biden's reaction to the Declaration, the White House Press Secretary said that it was not the President's role "to litigate internal church policy," but that the President has been clear that it is important to have protections for the transgender community and the broader LGBTQ+ community. 

Vox reports at greater length on the Vatican document.

Scientology Sued By Plaintiffs Alleging Years Of Abuse As Children

Suit was filed in a Florida federal district court last week under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act against the Church of Scientology by three plaintiffs who allege that they were abused by Scientology as children.  The 90-page complaint (full text) in Baxter v. Miscavige, (MD FL, filed 4/28/2022), alleges in part:

As children, all three Plaintiffs grew up in, and were raised by Scientology. This was not a peaceful or loving environment; instead, it was a world filled with abuse, violence, intimidation, and fear. Defendants considered Plaintiffs to be possessions, void of any rights, whose sole purpose was to serve Defendants. Plaintiffs were placed on a ship they could not leave and routinely punished by being humiliated, interrogated, and imprisoned, for the sole purpose of ensuring Plaintiffs would continue to perform back breaking free labor for the Defendants.

Wonkette reports on the lawsuit.

10th Circuit: Suit Against FLDS Leader Warren Jeff's Lawyers Can Move Ahead

In Bistline v. Parker, (10th Cir., March 14, 2019), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversing a district court's dismissal of the case, allowed various former members of the polygamous FLDS Church to move ahead with claims against the law firm that represented FLDS Prophet Warren Jeffs.  The court, in its 72-page opinion, summarizes plaintiffs' allegations:

Plaintiffs allege that defendants: (1) directly worked with Mr. Jeffs to create a legal framework that would shield him from the legal ramifications of child rape, forced labor, extortion, and the causing of emotional distress by separating families; (2) created an illusion of legality to bring about plaintiffs’ submission to these abuses and employed various legal instruments and judicial processes to knowingly facilitate the abuse; (3) held themselves out to be the lawyers of each FLDS member individually, thus creating a duty to them to disclose this illegal scheme; and (4) intentionally misused these attorney-client relationships to enable Mr. Jeffs’ dominion and criminal enterprise.

On plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim the majority said the district court should determine whether a lawyer-client relationship existed between defendants and various plaintiffs, saying:

If individuals have been cut off from outside resources because of sincerely held religious beliefs and have been actively and repeatedly deceived as to an attorney’s responsibilities and allegiances towards them personally, it is plausible that they reasonably believed they were individually and collectively represented by that attorney.

The district court had dismissed many of plaintiffs' claims on statute of limitations grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed, saying in part:

[D]efendants were allegedly tortfeasors who actively concealed wrongdoing from plaintiffs who plausibly contend they did not have enough knowledge to support a duty to inquire. Plaintiffs have alleged facts to support their claim that defendants had a direct fiduciary relationship of trust to plaintiffs, which they intentionally exploited to mislead plaintiffs over an extended period of time and arguably up to the time plaintiffs filed this action. The fraudulent concealment doctrine thus may operate to toll the limitations periods for plaintiffs’ claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, making it inappropriate to dismiss these claims at this stage.

The court also allowed certain plaintiffs to move ahead with claims under the Trafficking Victim Protection Reauthorization Act. Judge Briscoe filed a dissenting opinion. Courthouse News Service reports at greater length on the decision.

FOIA Request Aimed At Human Trafficking Grant To Catholic Bishops

The ACLU earlier this month filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking the release of records related to the federal government’s award of Trafficking Victim Protection Act funds to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  According to the complaint (full text) in ACLU v. Administration for Children and Families, (SD NY, filed 3/17/2016), in 2009 the ACLU filed a lawsuit claiming that the federal government violated the Establishment Clause by allowing USCCB under a 2006 grant to enter subcontracts with religiously-based reproductive health care restrictions in them.  Those subcontracts barred subcontracting agencies from furnishing abortion and contraception services or referrals to trafficking victims. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed as moot because the government was no longer contracting with USCCB.  However in 2015 USCCB received a new grant, and the ACLU is now seeking documents to determine whether religiously-based restrictions are again being imposed. LifeSite News yesterday reported on the lawsuit.