Ministerial Exception Applies to Most Claims by Unitarian Minister

In Rohde v. Unitarian Universalist Association, (ED PA, July 11, 2025), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed on ministerial exception grounds a retired Unitarian minister's claims of defamation, false light, tortious interference with contract claims as well as her claim that her contract was breached by defendant's decision to remove her from Fellowship and revoke her ministerial credentials. According to the court:

In April 2021, three other Unitarian Universalist ministers filed a complaint against Rev. Rohde with the Association and claimed that she had committed “ministerial misconduct” based on social media interactions the three ministers had with her.... The ministers’ complaint alleged that Rev. Rohde “engaged in ‘defamation’ of colleagues, breaking of ‘confidentiality,’ and other unspecified ‘professional conduct’ violations.”... 

The Committee’s “Executive Committee” determined that Rev. Rohde had committed “ministerial misconduct” and recommended that the full Committee remove her from Fellowship and revoke her ministerial credentials.... After a hearing on October 2, 2022, the Committee voted to remove Rev. Rohde from Fellowship and to revoke her ministerial credentials....

The question of whether Rev. Rohde in fact committed ministerial misconduct and violated ministerial ethics would involve the Court in measuring Rev. Rohde’s conduct against church doctrine and second-guessing the Association’s disciplinary processes for ministers.   The First Amendment prohibits the Court from weighing in on such issues....

However, the court held that the ministerial exception doctrine did not bar plaintiff's claim for payment of her retirement benefits, saying in part:

... [T]he Court can resolve both Rev. Rohde’s breach of contract claim and promissory estoppel claim without analyzing doctrine or impacting the Association’s ability to choose its ministers.  Rev. Rohde does not allege—and the Association’s bylaws and the Committee’s rules and policies do not show—that she was required to remain in Fellowship after retiring to continue receiving her “past earned” benefits.... Therefore, the ministerial exception does not bar Rev. Rohde’s breach of contract or promissory estoppel claims against the Pension Society at this stage.

Church Says Signage Required To Exclude Guns Burdens Free Speech

Suit was filed in a Texas federal district court earlier this week by a Unitarian Church (and another plaintiff) challenging a Texas law that makes it difficult to exclude individuals carrying firearms from one's property. The complaint (full text) in Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church v. Paxton, (SD TX, filed 9/2/2020) alleges in part:

Texas has ignored the First Amendment and enacted legislation that singles out a group with which it disagrees—those who prefer to keep guns off of their property—and selectively burdens their speech. Specifically, Texas property owners who espouse this viewpoint must post multiple large, text-heavy signs containing language specified by the State in order to exercise the longest established and most fundamental of their property rights: the right to exclude. If these property owners use other means of indicating that firearms are not welcome on the premises—even if entirely reasonable and understandable—they cannot avail themselves of Texas’s criminal trespass laws. By contrast, property owners who wish to exclude others for any other reason at all do not face these same burdens. This viewpoint-based discrimination was entirely intentional....

The Church has an official policy that forbids carrying firearms, whether open or concealed, onto church property....  One of the most fundamental religious tenets of the Church is to address conflict through conversation, non-violence, love, and compassion. The Church believes that the signs required by the Acts detract from those religious principles.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

Church Sues Over Its Removal As Polling Place

A suit was filed this week in a California federal district court by a Unitarian Church that was removed by election officials as a polling place because the church displayed two Black Lives Matter banners on its property and would not remove them for election day.  The complaint (full text) in Unitarian Universalist Church of Fresno v. Orth, (ED CA, filed 6/10/2019) contends that eliminating the church as a voting location violates its First Amendment free expression rights. Religion News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Unitarian Church Sues Saying It Has Religious Duty To Use Solar Panels

RLUIPA Defense blog reported last week on a suit filed in late June in Massachusetts by a Unitarian church seeking to install solar panels on its building in an Historic District. The complaint (full text) in First Parish in Bedford, Unitarian Universalist v. Historic District Commission of the Town of Bedford, (MA Superior Ct., filed 6/27/2016), contends that the denial of a certificate of appropriateness to install solar panels on the roof of its Meetinghouse infringes church members' free exercise of religion in violation of the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions. The complaint alleges that:

Unitarian Universalists ... believe that their religion necessarily involves taking action on a personal, congregational and community level to confront and mitigate mankind's role in causing and exacerbating global warming.