In Wilson v. Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, (OH Com. Pl., Oct. 30, 2026), an Ohio state trial court refused to dismiss a suit by Ohio's Attorney General that seeks to prevent Hebrew Union College (HUC) from closing its 150-year-old Cincinnati rabbinical school. (See prior posting.) The court said in part:
Defendant HUC argued that the Complaint fails on three independent constitutional grounds: (l ) the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine divests this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Complaint centers on purely ecclesiastical issues about where and how to train rabbinical candidates; (2) the Complaint violates the Free Exercise Clause by coercing a religious institution' s exercise of a central tenet of its faith; and (3) the Complaint violates the Establishment Clause by excessively entangling the government and HUC's religious affairs....
At this early stage of litigation, the Court finds that dismissal on constitutional grounds is premature.... The AG challenges HUC's actions as an Ohio charitable trust and nonprofit corporation. Although HUC argued that the decision to close the rabbinical school was "purely ecclesiastical," the allegations of the Complaint do not indicate that the Attorney General brought this case purely because of the decision to close the rabbinical school.
The Attorney General alleged (1) that HUC's 1950 Consolidation Agreement required HUC to permanently maintain a rabbinical school in Cincinnati, Ohio; (2) that Ohio donors have HUC millions of dollars in reliance on the commitment to maintaining a permanent rabbinical school in Cincinnati, Ohio; (3) that HUC then voted to delete to permanence requirement and close the rabbinical school; and (4) that HIC redistributed the Ohio charitable assets to New York, Los Angeles, and Jerusalem.
... [T]he central issue that appears at this time is not Jewish theology, religious doctrine, or ecclesiastical governance. Same issue could arise whether or not the defendant was a religious institution. Further, certain remedies sought by the Attorney General appear facially neutral....
The Attorney General alleged that HUC owes specific fiduciary duties to donors and beneficiaries, and that HUC breached those duties....
... [T]the burden is on the Attorney General to support the assertion that many of the donations to HUC would not have been given without the assurance of a "permanent" rabbinical school in Cincinnati. But HUC presumably keeps records of donations as the recipient of such donations, not the Attorney General....
JNS reports on the decision.