Religion Clause

Tuesday, March 17, 2026

President's Religious Liberty Commission Holds Hearing on Religious Liberty in Healthcare

Yesterday, the President's Religious Liberty Commission held its Sixth hearing, this one on religious liberty in health care. The hearing was held in Washington, DC, at the Museum of the Bible. Some 15 witnesses testified before the Commission. (Video of the 4-hour long hearing.) According to a Justice Department press release:

... The hearing included panels with testimony from medical professionals, parents and students impacted by vaccine mandates, human trafficking survivors, and social services providers. The hearing’s objective was to understand the threats to religious liberties in the medical field from ethical and practical perspectives and identify opportunities to secure religious liberty in this context for the future.

“Today, President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission hearing focused on healthcare, including foster care and social work, and it featured heartbreaking testimony from ordinary Americans who courageously and compassionately stood up to tackle problems like homelessness, human trafficking, and drug addiction,” said Chairman Dan Patrick. “Yet, instead of receiving support from their government, they had their God-given religious liberty rights violated, were threatened with long jail sentences and were fired from their jobs. This hearing, yet again, highlighted the need for our Commission and its important work. Unsurprisingly, nearly all of these violations occurred in Democrat states during the Biden Administration. Later this year, the Commission will deliver strong recommendations to President Trump to ensure believers never have their religious liberty rights violated again, whether in healthcare or any other facet of American society.”

The press release also provides biographical information on all the witnesses.

Court Permanently Enjoins Enforcement of Arkansas Law Requiring 10 Commandments in Every Classroom

In Stinson v. Fayetteville School District , (WD AR, March 16, 2026), an Arkansas federal district court issued a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing Arkansas' statute that requires the posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom. The court, finding both Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause problems with the law, said in part:

... [T]he State makes three important factual stipulations about Act 573:

(1) “Act 573 does not direct teachers to provide instruction about the Ten Commandments or about the displays.”

(2) “Act 573 does not require classroom instruction, and it does not require that the Ten Commandments be incorporated into public school curriculum.”

(3) “There is no requirement for teachers, other school officials, or students to interact with, bring attention to, or even acknowledge the posters in any way.”

In other words, the State admits there is no educational purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments—no teaching, no learning, and no curricular integration.

The Court is “reluctan[t] to attribute unconstitutional motives to the State[ ], . . . when a plausible secular purpose . . . may be discerned from the face of the statute.”... But here, a plausible secular purpose is expressly disavowed. Act 573’s purpose is only to display a sacred, religious text in a prominent place in every public-school classroom. And the only reason to display a sacred, religious text in every classroom is to proselytize to children. The State has said the quiet part out loud....

Act 573 is subject to strict scrutiny because it is denominationally preferential and burdens parent-Plaintiffs’ right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Arkansas Advocate reports on the court's decision.

9th Circuit Again Upholds Transfer of Apache Religious Site to Copper Company

In Arizona Mining Reform Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, (9th Cir., March 13, 2026), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals once again upheld the transfer of 2500 acres of National Forest land that includes Apache ceremonial religious ground to Resolution Copper Mining LLC. The land, for which Resolution Copper will transfer 5000 acres of land located elsewhere, contains nearly 2 billion metric tons of copper. The San Carlos Apache Tribe claimed that the transfer violates their free exercise rights protected by the 1st Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The 9th Circuit, sitting en banc, had previously rejected similar claims brought by Apache Stronghold, a non-profit organization representing the interests of certain members of the Tribe. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs in the current litigation unsuccessfully attempted to discredit the continuing viability of that prior decision. The court said in part:

... [T]he Lopez Plaintiffs ... argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor ... abrogated Apache Stronghold by clarifying the meaning of a “religious burden.” In their view, Mahmoud stands for the proposition that the court must determine if “looking to ‘the specific religious beliefs and practices asserted,’ the challenged government actions pose an ‘objective danger,’ or ‘very real threat’ to the claimant’s religious exercise, thus ‘substantially interfer[ing]’ with it.”... By contrast, the Lopez Plaintiffs argue, the Apache Stronghold majority rejected an inquiry into the relative objective or subjective nature of an asserted interference with religious practice in favor of an inquiry focused on coercion.

But this view of Mahmoud does not survive scrutiny. As an initial matter, the Supreme Court itself declined to rehear its denial of certiorari in Apache Stronghold... Regardless, the Lopez Plaintiffs misrepresent the thrust of Mahmoud by selectively quoting from it. Their focus on the “objective danger” language ignores that Mahmoud centers on (1) the education context and (2) policies that directly coerce or indirectly compel behavior at odds with individual religious beliefs or practices, not involving the disposition of government property....

... We nonetheless recognize that this land transfer will fundamentally alter the nature of the land, including destruction of those sites sacred to the Tribe, the Lopez Plaintiffs, and similarly situated Native individuals. Despite those grave harms to Native religious practice, Congress has chosen to transfer this land, and Plaintiffs have not raised any viable challenges to that decision....

Monday, March 16, 2026

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Spa's Policy on Transgender Women, With Unusually Controversial Dissent

Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, (9th Cir., March 12, 2026), is the denial of a panel and en banc rehearings to two Korean Spas that lost their 1st Amendment challenges to application of Washington state's anti-discrimination provisions to the spas admission policies. The spas admitted only "biological women", including transgender women who had received gender confirmation surgery. They excluded transgender women who had not completed that surgery. The original 3-judge panel denied a rehearing, but issued an amended majority opinion amending the opinion originally issued on May 29, 2025 (full text of original opinion). The court then denied en banc review. Three opinions dissenting from the denial of en banc review were filed. Judge VanDyke's dissenting opinion led to an unusual Statement concurred in by 27 Ninth Circuit judges saying:

The American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner or, as Justice O’Connor put it, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”1 It is not a place for vulgar barroom talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have “collectively lost their minds,” or that they are “woke judges[]” “complicit” in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans. That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead dissent ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court. Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.

Friday, March 13, 2026

Oklahoma AG Sues to Overturn Charter School Board's Strategic Factual Record In Rejecting Religious School

As previously reported, in May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court split evenly, 4-4, on the constitutionality Oklahoma funding a religiously sponsored charter school. The even split was caused by Justice Barrett recusing herself, apparently because of her connection to those promoting the school. Subsequently, a new test case was created, as the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation applied to create for a statewide virtual high school. (See prior posting.) This Tuesday, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board voted to reject the Ben Gamla School's most recent application and gave as its formal reason only that under Oklahoma law, a charter school is a public school and must be nonsectarian. The next day, Oklahoma's Attorney General filed suit against the Charter School Board in an Oklahoma state trial court contending that there were additional unrelated reasons for rejection of Ben Gamla's application. The suit seeks a writ of mandamus to require the Board to identify and incorporate into the record other valid, non-constitutional grounds for the rejection.

The petition (full text) in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, (OK Dist. Ct., filed 3/11/2026), alleges in part:

[T]he Board's refusal to list all of the reasons for rejecting the revised application is not coincidental. It is a deliberate decision designed to avoid issues of state law when Ben Gamla files a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board.... Oklahoma law does not permit the Board to strategically withhold valid grounds for rejection....

Presumably, if other grounds for the application denial were included, the U.S. Supreme Court might refuse to decide the federal constitutional issue posed by state funded religious schools on the ground that there were other reasons for the Board's rejection of the Ben Gamla application.

VINnews reports on the lawsuit.

Cemetery Loses Free Exercise and Establishment Clause Challenges to Permit Denial

In Steelmantown Church v. Carlton County, Minnesota, (D MN, March 11, 2026), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed claims under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses, RLUIPA, and Minnesota law brought by a nonprofit corporation that was refused permission to establish a cemetery that would perform "green burials." While Minnesota law allowed "religious corporations" to establish private cemeteries, Steelmantown was not formed as a Minnesota religious corporation. The court, explaining its rejection of Steelmantown's 1stAmendment claims, said in part:

... [E]stablishing and operating a cemetery of any sort is not inherently or exclusively a religious practice, and Section 307.01 on its face does not “aid or oppose particular religions” or “establish[] a denominational preference.”... The statute expressly authorizes “any private person” or “any religious corporation,” regardless of whether they adhere to any religious faith, to establish a private cemetery on land the person or corporation owns.... The statute’s reference to “any religious corporation,” meaning those incorporated under Chapter 315, establishes only a preference toward a specific type of incorporated entity, not a particular religious faith or denomination....

Steelmantown effectively seeks preferential treatment because of its religious beliefs that a secular but otherwise identical institution—that is, a foreign nonprofit corporation whose “identity and mission” are not “derived from religious or spiritual traditions,” ... would not receive in the same circumstances. If anything, that outcome would appear to be closer to a violation of the Establishment Clause than the conduct Steelmantown challenges here....

Steelmantown’s claim, in essence, appears to be that its religious practices are burdened by the requirement to incorporate (or reincorporate) under Chapter 315.... But nowhere does Steelmantown allege any facts that show this requirement “significantly inhibit[s] or constrain[s]” any “conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet” of its religious beliefs, “meaningfully curtail[s]” its “ability to express adherence” to those beliefs, or denies it a “reasonable opportunity to engage in those activities.” ... It does not explain, for instance, why maintaining its status as a foreign nonprofit corporation under Chapter 303 is central to its ability to express its religious beliefs or engage in its religious practices. Nor does Steelmantown allege facts that suggest the requirement “operates so as to make the practice of [its] religious beliefs more expensive.”...

Thursday, March 12, 2026

5th Circuit: Principal Lacks Qualified Immunity for Barring Teachers' Praying in View of Students

In Barber v. Rounds, (5th Cir., March 9,2026), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Texas high school principal Bryan Rounds does not have qualified immunity as to a teacher's First Amendment claims in a suit challenging his prohibition on teachers' engaging in any prayer that students might observe. The dispute grew out of the principal cautioning teachers in connection with a staff "See You At the Flagpole" event. The court said in part:

Barber asserts that the complaint alleges a blanket prohibition by Rounds on teachers engaging in any prayer that students might observe—regardless of whether the prayer was connected to a student-led event. Rounds, on the other hand, urges a narrower, contextual reading: that his directives were limited to ensuring teachers did not participate in the student-initiated SYATP gathering.

Barber’s reading is consonant with the complaint’s language. Her pleading alleges that Rounds told her she could not pray “in the presence of students” and could not engage in prayer where she would be “visible to students,” even away from the flagpole and even “when the teachers [are] not on school time.” ...

The second question is whether the First Amendment rights at issue were clearly established when Rounds’s challenged conduct occurred....

Barber contends that Kennedy [v. Bremerton School District] supplied the requisite clarity. Again, it does. As Barber points out, Kennedy expressly rejected the proposition that religious expression by a public-school employee may be restricted merely because students might observe it. The Kennedy Court rejected the rule that “visible religious conduct by a teacher or coach” may “be deemed—without more and as a matter of law—impermissibly coercive on students.” 597 U.S. at 540.

Vital Law reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Library's Policy on Use of Meeting Room

Suit was filed this week in an Alabama federal district court by Eagle Forum, a Christian community educational organization, challenging the policy of the Tuscaloosa Public Library that bars use of its large meeting room by "religious or sectarian groups for the purpose of preaching or otherwise demonstrating the beliefs of their members." The complaint (full text) in Eagle Forum of Alabama v. Tuscaloosa Public Library Bord of Trustees, (ND AL, filed 3/10/2026), alleges in part:

101. By putting Eagle Forum to a choice between exercising its religious beliefs through faith-based programming at its events and using the Rotary Room, the Defendants burden and “penalize[ ] the free exercise of religion.” ...

112. There is no compelling government interest to justify these content- and viewpoint-based restrictions, and the Reservation Policy is not narrowly tailored to advance any compelling governmental interest.

113. Even if the Rotary Room could only be considered a limited public forum ... it is well established that “speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint.”

The complaint also alleges that the library's policy violates the Equal Protection clause and the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Wyoming Governor Signs Heartbeat Abortion Law While Expressing Concern Over Its Constitutionality

On March 9, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed Enrolled Act No. 29 / House Bill 126, the Human Heartbeat Act (full text), into law (press release). The law prohibits an abortion when there is a detectable fetal heartbeat. The only exception is a "medical emergency", defined as a need to terminate a pregnancy to avert the mother's death or where there is serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

The law then sets out an alternative less-restrictive set of provisions which will take effect only if fetal heartbeat ban is found to be unconstitutional. These are the provisions that were in effect before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. These provisions ban abortions after viability, except when necessary to preserve the woman from an imminent peril that substantially endangers her life or health. These alternate provisions also require that in most cases an abortion patient be given an opportunity to view an active ultrasound. The alternative provisions also set out lengthy procedures where a minor is seeking an abortion.

Governor Gordon's Signing Letter (full text) questions the constitutionality of the new law. It says in part:

Despite the upright, moral intentions of HEA 29, I believe this act very likely puts us back in the all too familiar and unfortunate territory of pro-life litigation....

The central obstacle remains the Wyoming Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution in State v. Johnson...

In the Johnson case, the Wyoming Supreme Court by a vote of 4-1 held that Wyoming's nearly total abortion ban and its medication abortion ban violate Art. I, §38, of the Wyoming Constitution which provides that every competent adult has the right to make his or her health care decision, subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions imposed by the legislature. (See prior posting).

The Governor's signing letter also said that he would have preferred if the law had contained exceptions for rape and incest.

WyoFile reports on these developments.

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

County Employee Sues Over Denial of Religious Accommodation So He Could Avoid Celebrating Pride Month

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court by an employee of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works alleging that the county violated Title VII as well as the 1st and 14th Amendments and California law by denying him a religious accommodation so he would not have to celebrate Pride Month. The complaint (full text) in Batman v. Los Angeles County, (CD CA, filed 3/10/2026), alleges in part:

4. Beginning in March 2023, the County directed all of its government departments to ensure that the “Pride Progress Flag” was flown at every government department.... The policy revisions also directed the government offices to adopt ways to demonstrate that all government offices celebrate so-called “Pride Month” and make its celebration overt, express, and universal.

5. As a result of his sincerely held religious beliefs and a conflict with his employer’s open and notorious celebration of something Batman considers a sin, Batman requested a simple accommodation of working remotely during the one month of the year that his employment requirements conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs.....

82. Rather than provide Batman a reasonable accommodation that was plainly available and not burdensome to anyone, Batman was instructed that he could simply use the back entrance....

83. The Department also suggested to Batman that he seek mental health counseling for any distress he may feel as a result of the conflict between his sincerely held religious beliefs and the Department’s denial of his requested accommodation.... In other words, the Department suggested to Batman that his religious beliefs required mental health counseling rather than accommodation.

The complaint sets out at length the Biblical basis for plaintiff's beliefs.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Federal Jury Awards Muslim Inmates $667,000 After Guards Violently Disrupted Their Prayers

In a press release, CAIR Legal Defense Fund announced that on Monday a jury in federal district court in the Eastern District of Missouri has awarded $667,000 in damages to eight Muslim inmates whose prayer gathering was broken up by prison guards who pepper-sprayed them. The complaint (full text) in Clemons v. Precythe, (ED MO, filed 3/2/2023), alleged in part:

1. With the permission of state prison guards and officials, nine Muslims gathered for prayer on the evening of February 28, 2021. They did so in their housing unit, just as they had hundreds of times in the months preceding the sadistic, violent attack that gives rise to this action.

2. As Plaintiffs ... stood shoulder to shoulder in prayer, out of the blue, Defendant Basham ordered that there be no more praying in the housing unit. Two plaintiffs—Kent and Smith—abruptly stopped their prayers and stepped away. The others sought to quickly finish up. Nevertheless, five were pepper sprayed and one was viciously beaten, just because they prayed.

3. Viewing Muslims as nothing more than a gang, more than a dozen guards participated in this violent episode. The brutality began as an effort to disrupt Muslims praying together but morphed into a protracted effort to punish those who prayed—dispersing Plaintiffs throughout the state via transfers and otherwise retaliating against them.

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

USCIRF Releases 2026 Annual Report

Last week, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released its 2026 Annual Report (full text) containing its recommendations for designations of "countries of particular concern" under the International Religious Freedom Act. The Introduction to the 92-page report says in part:

USCIRF’s 2026 Annual Report assesses religious freedom violations and progress in 29 countries during calendar year 2025 and makes independent recommendations for U.S. policy.... This report’s primary focus is on two groups of countries: first, those that USCIRF recommends the State Department should designate as CPCs under IRFA and second, those that USCIRF recommends the State Department should place on its Special Watch List (SWL). The report also includes USCIRF’s recommendations of nonstate actors for designation by the State Department as EPCs under IRFA.

In addition, the report analyzes the U.S. government’s implementation of IRFA during the reporting year, recognizes the ways that the administration and Congress met USCIRF’s recommendations to more effectively advance religious freedom abroad, and provides new and updated policy recommendations for the same. This year, the report delineates USCIRF’s recommendations in a standalone chapter, including all relevant designations as well as policy options for the administration and Congress.

The Report recommends the following countries be designated "countries of particular concern": Afghanistan, Burma, China, Cuba, Eritrea, India, Iran, Libya, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.

Discussing the Report, Religion Unplugged said in part:

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s 2026 annual report, released on March 4, focused on international issues — but was overshadowed by controversy over its critique that other branches of government have undercut protections for religious freedom.

It criticized, for example, cuts to USAID programs, since many of those programs were specifically aimed at protecting religious freedom.

The report stated that the State Department’s suspension of foreign aid “left hundreds of victims of religious persecution receiving support in immediate need of lifesaving assistance in countries such as Afghanistan, Burma, Egypt, Nigeria, and Vietnam.” It added that U.S. funding cuts “contributed to 11.6 million refugees, including many fleeing religious persecution, losing access to humanitarian assistance,” and that as a result 130,000 refugees, including about 15,000 registered Iranian Christians, remain in limbo....

Republican members of the commission officially dissented from these statements. They did not say that the findings were wrong but that they went far beyond the scope of USCIRF's own mandate, which is specifically international in focus....

Former Charismatic Religious Leader Sued for Sexual Exploitation

At the end of last month, three women filed suit in a Tennessee federal district court against the former religious leader of Global Outreach Developments International, also known as G.O.D. International. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe I v. Garner, (MD TN, filed 2/27/2026) alleges in part:

Between 2022 to 2025, Gregg Garner, the charismatic leader of G.O.D. International, sexually abused and assaulted multiple women who were members of G.O.D., coercing his victims to participate in numerous sex acts, including sexual intercourse. Garner also coerced his victims through the threat of serious harm into providing unpaid labor and services. Garner exploited his position of trust as the spiritual leader of G.O.D., using the tools of cult indoctrination, such as food and sleep deprivation, social isolation, and extreme emotional abuse, to further his psychological control of his victims. Garner controlled every aspect of his victims’ lives, including their schooling, their employment, their spouse’s employment, their housing, even the schooling of their children, and used this control to reward compliance with his abusive scheme and to ensure his victims’ silence. While Garner preached a message of sexual purity, his victims endured his acts of sexual prurience for years, terrified that any resistance would tear apart their lives.

Entities controlled by Garner as well as church leaders are also named as defendants.

Ministry Watch reports on the lawsuit.

Certiorari Denied in Unification Church Dispute

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon, (Docket No. 25-634, certiorari denied 3/9/2026) (Order List). In the case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final dismissal of a lawsuit surrounding a long-running schism and succession dispute in the Unification Church. (See prior posting.) The Petition for Certiorari identified the Question Presented as:

Where necessary to resolve a church-property dispute, does the First Amendment prohibit courts from examining church-related facts to determine who leads the church?

Monday, March 09, 2026

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Trial Courts to Hear Claims of United Methodist Conference In Deciding Church Property Ownership

In Ex parte Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., March 6, 2026), the Alabama Supreme Court by a vote of 5-2 granted writs of mandamus in 15 cases involving disputes between break-away Methodist congregations and their parent body. In the cases, the local churches filed quiet title actions in trial courts to clarify that they owned their church buildings after their disaffiliations. The parent body (the Conference and its Board of Trustees) filed counterclaims contending that the church properties belong to, or are held in trust for, the Conference. The trial courts dismissed the counterclaims for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded civil courts from adjudicating the disputes. The Conference appealed by filing petitions for writs of mandamus, asking the Alabama Supreme Court to order the trial courts to vacate the orders that dismissed their counterclaims. The local churches contended that writs of mandamus were not the proper vehicle for reviewing the trial courts' decisions. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Justice Sellers, joined by Justice Cook, wrote in part:

If mandamus relief is not available in these cases, the question of subject-matter jurisdiction over the petitioners' counterclaims, which appear for the most part to be allegedly supported by the same sort of secular materials upon which the local churches rely in support of their quiet-title actions, will not be considered until after the parties and the trial courts in each action are, respectively, required to litigate and to preside over the local churches' claims to their final resolution.

At play here is the substantial possibility of significantly wasting the litigants' and the trial courts' time and resources....

It is true that the petitioners also point to trust provisions set out in the United Methodist Church's Book of Discipline, which is the governing document of the United Methodist Church. But that does not transform these actions from standard real-property disputes to ecclesiastical disputes. ...The petitioners' counterclaims, to the extent that they rely on the Book of Discipline, do not appear to require resolution of a dispute over doctrinal or ecclesiastical matters. Instead, the petitioners rely on provisions of the Book of Discipline that, they say, call for the real property at issue to be held in trust and that are referenced or implicated by deeds and other secular legal documents....

Justice McCool and Special Justices Edwards and Minor concurred in the result.

Acting Chief Justice Bryan dissented, saying in part:

Rather than identify an appropriate use of the writ of mandamus established by this Court, the petitioners have inconsistently argued that these cases present an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, but not really. I do not regard that argument as sufficient to meet their burden under these circumstances....

Justice Mendheim dissented, saying in part:

I understand the main opinion's desire to be helpful in resolving these disputes, but we cannot do so without entangling the courts in matters that are best left to the moral judgments of the parties involved....

... [A] proper understanding "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 neutral-principles-of-law approach ... asks courts to do the impossible: interpret church practices and guidelines through a "secular" lens. ...

If the courts elect to enter this fray between local churches and a church denomination's organizing bodies, they should do so absent any reference to the Book of Discipline and its trust clause because there is no way to read that document or that paragraph "in purely secular terms." Courts should not determine whether ecclesiastical abstention applies in a case based on the false notion that there is a distinct bright line between what is "secular" and what is "religious."

Four Justices recused themselves.

AL.com reported on the decision.