Suits Against Break-Away United Methodist Congregations in South Carolina Dismissed on Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In South Carolina, because of doctrinal disagreements over ordination of gay clergy, same-sex marriage and similar issues, 70 United Methodist congregations have taken steps to disaffiliate from their parent body, the South Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church ("Conference"). The congregations seek to retain their church buildings and other property after their disaffiliation. The Conference has filed suit against them, contending that according to the UMC Book of Discipline, the congregations' property is held in trust for the parent Conference. By order of the South Carolina Supreme Court, Common Pleas Court Judge Brian Gibbons was assigned to hear all the cases. Last week, Judge Gibbons issued opinions in two cases dismissing the Conference's claims to church property and he announced that he also plans to issue an order dismissing the 68 other suits.

In South Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Simpsonville United Methodist Church, (SC Com. Pl., Nov 13, 2026), the court said in part:

The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies here and deprives the Court of jurisdiction because the Conference’s Complaint asks this Court to interpret and apply its religious doctrine, as set forth in the UMC Book of Discipline, and to find that Simpsonville Methodist has violated the religious text. The first full sentence of the Complaint plainly states that “Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment and adjudication regarding the obligations of the Defendants pursuant to The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.” The remainder of the Complaint is similarly clear. The factual allegations, the causes of action, and the requested relief all rest on the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the UMC Book of Discipline....

The Conference does not allege any property or corporate right that arises from a source independent of the UMC Book of Discipline, nor is there any controversy that can be resolved without improper adjudication of religious issues....

An additional reason the Conference cannot avoid the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in this case is that the Conference has previously taken the position that the doctrine applies to bar jurisdiction in every instance the Court can find in which the Conference has been sued in this state’s courts. The Conference is, therefore, judicially estopped from maintaining a contrary position in this action....

Third, the Court cannot impose the trust clause from the UMC Book of Discipline onto Simpsonville Methodist’s property merely because the local church participated in denominational life and submitted generic annual affirmations. Those actions do not evince a present intent by the local church to create a trust, nor do they constitute a writing demonstrating a present intention as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 62-7-401(a)(2).

In Soutth Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Duncan Memorial Methodist Church, (SC Com. Pl. Nov. 13, 2026), the court said in part:

The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies here and deprives the Court of jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ Complaint asks this Court to interpret and apply religious doctrine, as set forth in the UMC Book of Discipline, and to find that Duncan Memorial violated Plaintiffs’ preferred religious text, the Book of Discipline. The factual allegations, causes of action, and requested relief all rest on the interpretation, application, and enforcement of the UMC Book of Discipline. 

Throughout the Complaint, the Conference reiterates that its claims are based on the UMC Book of Discipline, which is described as a guiding religious text for “church law, polity, and procedures,” and alleges that actions taken by Duncan Memorial were wrongful because they violated the UMC Book of Discipline.... Even the most fundamental allegations of the Complaint—the identification of the parties involved in this controversy—are entangled with complicated issues of religious doctrine and church polity....

An additional reason that Plaintiffs cannot avoid the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine here is that the Conference has previously taken the position that the doctrine applies to bar jurisdiction in every instance the Court can find in which the Conference has been sued in this state’s courts. The Conference is, therefore, judicially estopped from maintaining a contrary position in this action....

Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts from which the Court could reasonably infer that Duncan Memorial expressly, knowingly, and intentionally adopted the Book of Discipline’s Trust Clause with a present intent to create a trust. Plaintiffs do not plead the existence of any writing evincing a present intent by Duncan Memorial to adopt the denominational trust. Indeed, the words “intent,” “present intent,” or any variation thereof appear nowhere in the Complaint....

Advocate reports that Judge Gibbons intends to issue an order dismissing the remaining 68 cases, and the Conference intends to appeal the decisions.

NYC Health Department Employees Sue Claiming Anti-Jewish Discrimination

Suit was filed this week in a New York federal district court by seven employees of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) alleging discrimination on the basis of religion, creed, ethnicity, ancestry, and national origin. The 110-page complaint (full text) in Cohen v. City of New York, (SD NY, filed 11/10/2026), alleges in part:

2. DOHMH operates an Employee Resource Group (ERG) program that confers official recognition, an agency e-mail account, a SharePoint page, a place on the agency’s ERG calendar, and a $5,000 annual budget on employee groups that “share common identities or backgrounds.” DOHMH has recognized six ERGs. 

3. Since July 2025, DOHMH has twice refused to recognize a Jewish ERG on the stated ground that Jewish identity is “religious” and that “ERG identity cannot be based on religious groups.” The written denial so ruled although HINENU’s application and charter stated, repeatedly and expressly, that the group is organized around the shared peoplehood, ancestry, ethnic heritage, culture, and history of the Jewish people, that it “will not engage in political advocacy, religious worship, or religious instruction,” and that it “is not organized to advance, oppose, or practice any religion.” ...

5. On December 16, 2025, days after two gunmen murdered Jews gathered for a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, HINENU sent from its agency e-mail account, to the approximately eighty-five DOHMH employees on its mailing list, a Hanukkah message mourning the victims and quoting a New York rabbi’s public statement that “anti-Zionism kills Jews,” and convened an online support space for grieving Jewish employees. The next day ... DOHMH’s EEO Director ordered HINENU to “desist” from using its agency e-mail account.  

6. DOHMH then opened an EEO investigation of eight leaders of HINENU ...  for “racial and religious discrimination,” on a complaint by fourteen co-workers...., several of whom had organized the Department’s own anti-Israel programming. 

7. Over a nearly four-month investigation, DOHMH’s investigators interrogated HINENU leaders about their beliefs concerning Zionism, Israel, and the meaning of the slogan “globalize the intifada,” pressed them to concede that quoting a rabbi’s condemnation of that slogan was “inflammatory,” “political,” and “triggering,” and suggested that Jews who fear those who chant “globalize the intifada” thereby express hostility to Arabs and Muslims....

9. These acts occurred as part of an environment at DOHMH, prevailing since October 7, 2023, hostile to Jews, embodied primarily in severe and pervasive messaging of animus toward the State of Israel and support for its enemies....

National Jewish Advocacy Center issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. JTS reports on the lawsuit.

8th Circuit: Jail Officials Had Qualified Immunity In Suit Claiming Limited Access To Religious Material

In Scharnhorst v. Cantrell, (8th Cir., Nov. 12, 2026), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a sheriff and two correctional officers had not violated a clearly established right when they enforced a Detention Center policy on reading material that limited plaintiff's access to religious texts. Thus Arkansas correctional officials had qualified immunity in a pre-trial detainee's suit against them alleging violation of his 1st Amendment rights. The majority said in part:

The other religious material cases Scharnhorst cites on appeal involve prison policies banning one religious text while allowing others....  That is not what happened here, so these cases do not clearly establish a constitutional violation....

The dissent points to the district court’s finding that “Scharnhorst and other detainees at the WCDC cannot obtain access to any religious materials at all.”... That is also blatantly contradicted by the record. ... Scharnhorst had access to kiosks and tablets on over 80% of the days he was detained.  The tablets contained Bibles and, as the dissent concedes, other religious materials.  Scharnhorst also was entitled to one religious text, and he admitted there were Bibles on the book cart.....

Judge Grasz dissented as to this part of the court's decision, saying in part:

... [W]hile Scharnhorst admits there were various copies of the Bible on the book cart, he alleges the book cart “was nearly impossible to get.”  Recognizing the issue, the district court found there was a question of material fact whether the physical Bibles “were, in fact, available to the detainees”...  

... [T]he court disregards certain parts of the record and reconstructs others in Defendants’ favor to overcome the district court’s conclusion that there was a “de facto ban” on Scharnhorst’s access to religious materials.  Respectfully, that is not our role.  The district court found a de facto ban on detainees’ access to religious materials and, in my view, a long line of precedent puts any jail official on fair notice that a policy or conduct that effectively institutes such a ban is a violation of the First Amendment....

Librarian Fired for Displaying Trans Friendly Book Alleges Religious Discrimination

 A lawsuit claiming religious, racial and sex discrimination as well as free speech, due process and equal protection violations was filed last month in a Georgia federal district court by the former manager of a public library in Pierce County, Georgia. Plaintiff, a black woman, was removed from her position because she included in a book display a children's book about a transgender family. The complaint (full text) in Moore v. Three Rivers Regional Library System, (SD GA, filed 10/26/2026), alleges in part:

19. The theme for the State of Georgia’s statewide summer reading program in 2025 was “Color Our World.” 

20. As the library manager in Pierce County, Moore invited local families, parents and children, to select books from within the library with colorful book covers to put on display in celebration of the Color Our World theme.... A family whom Moore considers to be gender fluid selected the children’s book, When Aidan Became a Brother....

23. Moore did not censor the family’s selection and allowed the book to be displayed in the Pierce County library as part of a larger selection of books selected for Color Our World.

24. The book display was posted on social media....

26.  In an email to [the County] Commissioners ... local resident Crystal Winn, who has a history of anti-LGBTQ activism and is affiliated with the Alliance for Faith and Family, stated in part, “[T]his kind of mental manipulation (also known today as mental rape) of children where adults get children to focus on their sexuality and confuse them, teaching them God made them incorrectly is immensely harmful!”...

35. Pierce County directed Three Rivers to terminate Moore’s employment, and Three Rivers complied on June 18, 2025....

38. Three Rivers replaced Moore with a white woman as the library manager in Pierce County and retained a white, gay man in a leadership position....

41. Title VII prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because of her religious beliefs. 

42. Defendants terminated Moore because, consistent with her beliefs, she associated with a gender fluid family and allowed that family to select and display a book in the library about a trans child....

Metro Weekly reports on the lawsuit.

Claim Against School District for Student-on-Student Antisemitic Bullying Moves Ahead

In Harris v. General Brown Central School District, (ND NY, Nov. 19, 2926), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims under 42 USC §1983 brought against a school district by parents as guardians of their son, a junior-high-school student, who suffered extensive antisemitic bullying and harassment by fellow classmates. Plaintiffs claim that school administrators took no steps to prevent the bullying. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that C.H. suffered a physical assault by a student who called him a “fucking Jew,” stated “he wanted to put C.H. in an oven,” and proceeded to send him images of Hitler, Nazi flags, and the Star of David.... Students later told C.H. that “being Jewish is a disgrace to society,”...; that “Hitler should have been successful,” ...; and used antisemitic slurs in reference to C.H. ... The comments directed at C.H. frequently referenced violence and included “deplorable insults about the Holocaust, one of the worst tragedies in history and an understandable area of sensitivity for the Jewish community in particular.”...

Plaintiffs also assert that supervisory personnel such as Principal Ramie and Assistant Principal Folino “were aware of the ongoing harassment but continually failed to take appropriate action to stop it.” ... Assistant Principal Folino referred to a student’s statement that “Hitler should have been successful” as mere “rude comments,” and administrators did not take any steps to enforce their antidiscrimination policies following the incident. 

Defendants argue the incidents alleged by Plaintiffs are too “sporadic[]” to support a widespread and persistent practice theory. ... However, ... the allegations plausibly show a pattern of persistent failures by school officials to respond to antisemitic harassment... Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants failed to discipline students involved in antisemitic incidents despite the Harrises’ repeated complaints is sufficient to allege a widespread practice from which officials’ constructive acquiescence to the conduct can be inferred....

... [T]he Court finds Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for municipal liability under the third Monell theory....

The court however dismissed Title VI claims by the parents on their own behalf because they had alleged only violations of their son's rights and not violations of their own rights.

Florida Grand Jury Indicts Man for Mailing Threatening Antisemitic Letters to Organizations and Individuals

 On Monday, the Department of Justice announced that a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida has indicted 58-year-old Brian Charles, alleging that he mailed antisemitic letters threatening violence to Jewish organizations and to individuals under federal Secret Service protection. According to allegations in the Criminal Complaint filed against him, Charles sent his victims a printed letter captioned "The Punishment Of My Wicked Jews In The American Government" and signed "Your God has spoken, amen!" The letters went to the Holocaust Memorial Miami Beach, American Jewish Committee Palm Beach, an executive of AIPAC, and two other individual who are Secret Service protectees. The indictment charges Charles with violating 18 U.S.C. §876(c), mailing threatening communications. In 2018, Charles had plead guilty to similar charges in New Mexico.

Trinidad and Tobago's Criminalization of "Buggery" Struck Down by Privy Council

Britain's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest appellate authority for certain territories and former territories of Great Britain, including the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago.  In Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Jones, (UK PC, Nov. 10, 2026), the Privy Council held that Trinidad and Tobago's criminalization of "buggery", i.e. anal intercourse, and its criminalization of similar conduct as acts of "serious indecency", violate fundamental rights protections of Trinidad and Tobago's Constitution. Trinidad and Tobago's High Court had reached a similar conclusion, and as a remedy modified the statutory ban so that it would not apply to consensual activity between adults and also reduced the maximum penalties to imprisonment for 5 years. The challenged legislation had imposed penalties ranging from 5 years to life in prison. The Privy Council provisionally adopted this remedy but gave the parties the opportunity to file further arguments on this point.

The Privy Council also posted a Press Summary of the decision. Links to pleadings in the case and to videos of the oral arguments are available here.

Trump Nominates Matthew Zandi To EEOC

Yesterday the White House announced that President Trump has sent to the Senate the nomination of Matthew Zandi to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for a term ending July 1, 2031. Zandi, if confirmed, will fill the position formerly held by Jocelyn Samuels who had been appointed by President Trump for a term ending in July 2026, but who was removed from her position by Trump in January 2025 along with Charlotte Burrows (Background). Zandi currently serves as chief of staff and special counsel in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Initial reaction to Zandi's nomination suggests that he will face at least some opposition. The EEOC enforces federal laws barring discrimination in employment, including religious discrimination.

Court Says Indictment of Church Leaders on Forced Labor Charges Does Not Violate 1st Amendment or RLUIPA

In United States v. Taylor, (ED MI, Nov. 9, 2026), a Michigan federal district court rejected free exercise and RFRA defenses to indictments charging multiple counts of forced labor and a count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Defendant Taylor was the leader of the Kingdom of God Global Church. He created call centers to raise money for the Church and recruited individuals to work at them without pay. He set unreasonable goals for the solicitors, used them for other services and coerced them into furnishing sexually explicit photos and videos. He isolated them from family and friends and housed them at church facilities. The court said in part:

If workers attempted to leave KOGGC, Taylor told them they would suffer “consequences including sickness, accidents, death, and eternal damnation.”...  When workers “disobeyed an order or failed to follow a rule,” Defendants imposed punishments, including “physical assault, additional work, sleep deprivation, food restrictions, loss of shelter, psychological abuse, and threats of spiritual damnation.”...  Defendants also oversaw lengthy meetings where workers who had displeased them were humiliated and rebuked in front of other workers....

Taylor argues that his free-exercise rights extend beyond beliefs and shield his religious conduct from prosecution.... He also argues that the Government’s prosecution of him is premised on the view that he is a “false prophet.” This, he argues, improperly turns theological disapproval into a crime, because a jury must conclude that his beliefs are false to find him guilty.....

Even if these actions were religiously motivated, they are all actions. In turn, this allegedly criminal conduct is subject to regulation for the protection of society, even if Taylor committed it under the guise of religion. ....

The more difficult question is whether Taylor’s use of religious threats is actionable conduct. For example, the Indictment alleges that if KOGGC workers “disobeyed an order or failed to follow a rule,” Defendants would “claim the laborer was defying God and would suffer in hell.”... These allegations arguably straddle the border between conduct—speaking threats—and simply stating beliefs allegedly shared by Taylor and KOGGC members. This Court finds that these threats are actionable conduct, rather than unprosecutable religious beliefs....

RFRA provides broader protections than the First Amendment....

This Court finds that the prosecution is a substantial burden, meaning Taylor has established a prima facie case....

In this case, there is no way for the Government to enforce its interest in protecting KOGGC’s victims without enforcing § 1589 via criminal prosecution.... The Government has shown that there are no adequate, less restrictive options. 

Tennessee's Exclusion of Religious Charter Schools Violates 1st Amendment

In Wilberforce Academy of Knoxville v. Knox County Board of Education, (ED TN, Nov. 6, 2026), a Tennessee federal district court held that the provision in Tennessee law that requires state-funded charter schools to be nonsectarian and nonreligious violates the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The court said in part: 

... Tennessee charter schools are operated by private actors that contract with State. While it is certainly commendable that Tennessee wants to “[e]ncourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods,” it cannot do so by opening the door to private participants just to discriminate against them on the basis of religion.....

Because the Nonsectarian Requirement works to “disqualify some private schools from funding solely because [of their] religious [use],” it must be subjected to “the strictest scrutiny.”...

... Although the State may ultimately approve a charter school application, it certainly does not establish a church or other religious institution.... It merely contracts with the private institution to operate a charter school. The ... argument that State-established religious institutions are unconstitutional, therefore, does not apply.  

As to the antiestablishment interest in preventing the funding of religious education, it too fails. There does not exist any “historic and substantial” tradition to support Tennessee’s “decision to disqualify religious schools from government aid.”...  And if the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise precedent tell us anything, it is this: Neutrally administering a state education program in which funds reach religious schools does not offend the Establishment Clause because it neither favors nor disfavors religion....

... [S]tates have a long history of supporting religious education through public funding.... Tennessee’s charter school funding mechanism is consistent with that tradition. Like the programs at issue in Espinoza [v. Montana Department of Revenue] and Carson [v. Makin], Tennessee distributes funding on a per-pupil basis, meaning that public funds follow students to the schools their families choose.... Families are free to select a charter school or pursue other educational options, and the State’s role is to provide funding to the school in which a student enrolls.....  That the funds ultimately reach a religious institution—approved to operate a charter school—does not transform the State’s support for a generally available educational benefit into an establishment of religion....

Knox News reports on the decision.

Australia Releases Updated Plan to Combat Antisemitism

On October 30, Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism released a 40-page update to Australia's national plan for combatting antisemitism. The document titled Combatting Antisemitism: Special Envoy's Priorities (full text), explains the sources, drivers and facilitators of antisemitism as well as discussing in depth the next steps to be taken. The press release announcing the new report says that the report "builds on the Plan the Australian Government adopted in full after the Bondi terror attack and responds to further signs that Australia’s social fabric is fraying." The press release concisely summarizes priorities for the next phase as follows:

• Education, codes of conduct and complaints. Governments, businesses, community groups, sporting bodies, arts organisations and universities to educate their people and to adapt their codes of conduct and complaints processes to incorporate antisemitism.
• Public money. Taxpayer-funded organisations and grants must not be used to promote, facilitate or accept antisemitism, across the arts, sport and university research, backed by enforceable funding conditions.
• Public service. Continued collaboration on training for public servants.
• Universities. Every university to adopt and operationalise a definition of antisemitism in line with the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) and TEQSA’s Statement of Regulatory Expectations.
• Schools. A fully funded national roll-out of the UNESCO program for teachers and students, following evaluation of the current trial.
• Health. A national Healthcare Antisemitism Taskforce and continued engagement with Ahpra, so every patient can trust their care and Jewish practitioners are protected from harassment and vexatious complaints.
• Arts. Cultural institutions to adopt codes of conduct to make cultural spaces safe for all and for initiatives to be trialled to re-engage doxxed or otherwise excluded Jewish creatives and artists into the broader Australian arts sector.
• The law. Continual review and reform by Commonwealth, state and territory governments of gaps in the legislative framework, and measures to ensure the laws are contemporary and effectively enforced.
• Media. An independent ombudsman for Australia’s public broadcasters to ensure they are held accountable to their own stated standards of accuracy and impartiality.

President Sends Diwali Greetings

Yesterday was the main day of the 5-day festival of Diwali. The White House yesterday posted a Presidential Message on Diwali. It reads in part:

Today, I send my warmest greetings to Americans across our great Nation celebrating Diwali—the Festival of Lights.

During this special time, families gather around flickering diyas, homes shine with the warmth of ancient traditions, and countless communities glow with the beauty of a celebration thousands of years in the making.  This Diwali, we observe light’s enduring triumph over the forces of darkness and honor the goodness that lives within each and every one of us—timeless values that have long enriched the great story of America....

American Bazaar reports:that in Seattle Washington, a Diwali cultural festival was disrupted on Saturday by protesters carrying anti-Hindu and anti-Indian signs.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Achmad Shiva'ul Haq Asjach, Arinal Muna & Hilma Luthfia, Islamic Religious Counselors in the Modern Era: A Critical Analysis of Challenges, Role Transformation, and Strategies for Strengthening Professionalism, (September 07, 2026).
• Ian Kano, The Forbidden: AI, Robots and the Breaking of Belief, Love and Law, (October 27, 2026).
• Krishna Jamo & Ruchit Yadav, The Wall of Places of Worship Act, 1991, (December 09, 2025).
• Musab Abbas Sani, Beyond Halal and Haram: A Comparative Jurisprudential Analysis of Forex and Cryptocurrency Trading in Islamic Law, (November 07, 2025).
• Phil Kline, Constitutionalizing an Enforcement Vacuum: Virginia House Joint Resolution 1 and the Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse, (Liberty University Law Review, forthcoming Spring 2027).

From SmartCILP:

• Dru Brenner-Beck, Combatant Immunity—Much Ado about ... Something, 58 Texas Tech Law Review 363-434 (2026).
• Carolyn L. Wheeler, Impact of Contemporary "Culture Wars" on Religious Discrimination Claims and Defenses, (Abstract), 39 A.B.A. Journal of Labor & Employment Law 1-39 (2026).
• JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION, Vol. 40 Issue 1, Vol. 40 Issue 2, Vol. 40 Issue 3.

11th Circuit Rejects Hebrew-Israelite Inmate's Complaints About Diet Accommodations

In Robinson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, (11th Cir., Nov. 4, 2026), the U.S.11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a Hebrew Israelite prisoner who claims his free exercise rights were infringed when he was denied religiously compliant food for two religious holidays and when he was not permitted to reenroll in the prison's alternative meals program because he had not demonstrated the sincerity of his religious exercise.  The court said in part:

Robinson argues that Chaplain Gault had a duty to correspond with FDOC’s food service department on his behalf, but he presented no evidence below to establish that the chaplain had this affirmative duty.  Instead, the unrefuted evidence indicated the opposite -- that Robinson himself needed to contact food services to receive unleavened meals during Passover and failed to do so.... [This] did not “effectively” deprive Robinson of the means by which he could practice his religion and amounted to, at most, a mere “inconvenience to [Robinson’s] religious practice.”...

Nor did the court err in granting summary judgment on Robinson’s claim that he had not received a double-portion bagged lunch to break his fast at the end of the Day of Atonement in ... 2020.  Robinson concedes that he was offered meal trays at breakfast, lunch, and dinner on that day....  [H]e could have retained one or all of these meals and consumed them after sundown to break his fast.  On this record, we cannot say that the FDOC’s actions amounted to a substantial burden on Robinson’s religious exercise.   

Robinson also challenges Chaplain Martinez’s decision to deny his reenrollment in the RDP in December 2020 -- after he had removed himself from the RDP in 2013 or 2014....  However, Chaplain Martinez’s decision did not amount to a First Amendment violation because, based on the undisputed record, it was made in accordance with FDOC’s reasonable policy for assessing admittance to the program. ...

... [T]here is a rational relationship between FDOC’s policy of assessing the sincerity of inmates’ religious beliefs and the neutral need to limit the cost and administrative burden of providing alternative meal options to inmates....  Robinson did not argue, and the evidence does not suggest, that the sole means of Robinson’s Hebrew Israelite religious expression was the receipt of a religiously-compliant diet.  Rather, the FDOC Chaplaincy Services guide lists many other forms of exercise for the Hebrew Israelite faith, involving work proscription days, clothing, and worship.

WV Supreme Court Construes Fraud Exception to Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In State of West Virginia  ex rel. Trustees of the West Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Wills, (WV Sup. Ct. App., Nov. 4, 2026), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the fraud exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine was not applicable to statements that merely misinterpreted Church law. In 2019, amidst objections from numerous local churches to the increasing acceptance of same sex marriage and ordination of homosexual clergy, the United Methodist Church set up a procedure by which local congregations could disaffiliate and retain their church property. However, congregations had only until December 31, 2023, to disaffiliate under this provision. In West Virginia, local churches postponed disaffiliating until after that date in reliance on incorrect information given to them by representatives of the parent General Conference. The Supreme Court said in part:

The Local Churches’ claims arise from the Church’s rules governing disaffiliation and the disposition of church property. Adjudicating those claims would require the circuit court to determine what the Discipline permitted, what procedures it made available to congregations seeking to disaffiliate, and whether the Conference properly interpreted and applied the Church’s governing law. Those are questions of ecclesiastical law committed exclusively to the Church’s own governing structure....

... The Local Churches alleged that in 2022, Conference representatives advised them that ¶ 2553 did not permit disaffiliation because the General Conference had not made any changes necessary to trigger the provision.... [T]hey contend that it constitutes a false statement that induced them to delay disaffiliation. However, whether that interpretation was correct or not is a question of Church law beyond the review of the civil courts. 

Characterizing a difference of opinion over the meaning of the Discipline’s provisions as a false statement does not confer jurisdiction upon a secular court to decide the underlying ecclesiastical question.

The same is true of the Local Churches’ allegations concerning ¶ 2549. They allege that Conference representatives promised that they could use that provision’s closure procedure to disaffiliate after the 2024 General Conference despite knowing when they made the representation that it was false... [In 2024, the] Judicial Council ... [held] that ¶ 2549 did not provide a means of disaffiliation. The Local Churches do not allege that this decision was procured by fraud, nor do they allege that Conference representatives colluded with the Judicial Council.... To adjudicate their claims ... the circuit court would necessarily have to determine whether the Conference’s interpretation of the Discipline was correct. That question implicates the Church’s interpretation and application of its own ecclesiastical law and therefore cannot be independently determined by the Circuit Court of Mercer County.

The Local Churches contend that their allegations of fraud and collusion act as an exception to the constitutional constraint on civil courts’ authority to adjudicate ecclesiastical matters and require the court to consider their claims. We decline to apply the exception so broadly. ...

... [T]he exception does not encompass alleged misconduct that did not procure the final decision; accompanied an interpretation of church law by a church authority not empowered to issue binding interpretations; or otherwise contributed to the underlying dispute....