In Belya v. Kapral, (2d Cir., Feb. 8, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review of a 3-judge panel decision which held that the collateral order doctrine does not allow appeal of an interlocutory order rejecting a church autonomy defense. The defense was raised in an action in which plaintiff contended that he was defamed when defendants publicly accused him of forging a series of letters regarding his appointment as Bishop of Miami in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Judge Lohier, joined by Judges Lee, Robinson, Nathan and Merriam, filed an opinion concurring in the denial of review, saying in part:
[T]he panel’s decision regarding appellate jurisdiction at this stage in the case poses no threat to the church autonomy doctrine, which has thrived without help from the expansion of the collateral order doctrine that the dissent proposes.
Senior Judge Chin filed a statement in support of denying review, saying in part:
While the church autonomy doctrine provides religious associations with "independence in matters of faith and doctrine and in closely linked matters of internal government," ... it does not provide them with "a general immunity from secular laws"...
Judge Cabranes dissented, citing the exceptional importance of the issues involved.
Judge Park, joined by Chief Judge Livingston and Judges Sullivan, Nardini and Menashi, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:
This case arises from a minister’s suspension by his church. The church autonomy doctrine, which is rooted in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, generally requires courts to stay out of such matters. But the panel decision leaves the church defendants subject to litigation, including discovery and possibly trial, on matters relating to church governance. This imperils the First Amendment rights of religious institutions. Denials of church autonomy defenses should be included in the narrow class of collateral orders that are immediately appealable.
Reuters reports on the decision.