United States: Religious Institutions Update: June 2017

Last Updated: June 13 2017
Article by Nathan A. Adams IV

Nathan Adams IV is a Partner for Holland & Knight's Tallahassee office.

Lex Est Sanctio Sancta

Timely Topics

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, No. 15-577. The lawsuit concerns whether the daycare operated by a Missouri church may qualify for a state program that reimburses nonprofits for the purchase and installation of a rubber playground surface. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked a question that frames much of the current debate about religious freedom. She observed that the daycare in Trinity Lutheran has a nondiscriminatory admissions policy. "But suppose it didn't?" Justice Ginsburg asked. "Suppose its policy was we prefer Lutheran children, and then if we have any space left over after that, we'll take other Christians. And then after that, maybe Jews, and then everyone else.... Could ... they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an ... admissions policy that favors members of their church?" Tr. 12:10-21. The church responded affirmatively based on what it described as a free exercise right to religious autonomy to decide who are its members. Tr. 12:22-13:11. The church summarized the state's discretion this way: The state does not have to set up the program in the first place or could make government schools the exclusive beneficiaries, "but once it sets up the program to include all" not-for-profit preschools based on certain criteria that a religious organization meets, the state cannot discriminate against the religious organization irrespective of its admissions policy. Tr.  has a nondiscriminatory admissions policy. "But suppose it didn't?" Justice Ginsburg asked. "Suppose its policy was we prefer Lutheran children, and then if we have any space left over after that, we'll take other Christians. And then after that, maybe Jews, and then everyone else.... Could ... they demand as a matter of Federal constitutional right that that playground be funded, even though they have an ... admissions policy that favors members of their church?" Tr. 12:10-21. The church responded affirmatively based on what it described as a free exercise right to religious autonomy to decide who are its members. Tr. 12:22-13:11. The church summarized the state's discretion this way: The state does not have to set up the program in the first place or could make government schools the exclusive beneficiaries, "but once it sets up the program to include all" not-for-profit preschools based on certain criteria that a religious organization meets, the state cannot discriminate against the religious organization irrespective of its admissions policy. Tr. 27:10-28:5. As Justice Ginsburg's question indicates, some jurists disagree and want to condition a religious organization's participation in public programs or even a religious organization's tax-exempt operations on popular conceptions of the good not always in line with a religious organization's theology; for example, by requiring open admissions or open employment or by curtailing its speech. Other Americans want to exclude religious organizations from public programs merely because they are religious. These views may be gaining ground, so religious organizations are wise to engage in compliance planning now before they are caught in the movement's crosshairs.

Key Cases

EO Temporarily Suspending Immigration Enjoined Under Establishment Clause

In International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, No. 17-1351, 2017 WL 2273306 (4th Cir. May 25, 2017), the court of appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's nationwide preliminary injunction on Establishment Clause grounds against the president's second executive order (EO) temporarily suspending immigration from six predominately Muslim countries (i.e., Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) with known ties to terrorism. The individual plaintiffs are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents who have sponsored relatives who are citizens of one of the designated countries and seek immigrant visas to enter the U.S. The court determined that the EO injured them as a result of their separation from family members. It considered their claim that the alleged "official anti-Muslim sentiment" expressed in the EO caused them mental stress and rendered them "isolated and disparaged," sufficient to state an Establishment Clause claim. In assessing an Establishment Clause burden, governmental statements of purpose generally receive deference, but in this case, the court ruled it was appropriate to look at the motives for the EO, including the sequence of events leading up to it, such as President Donald Trump's first EO as well as public statements he made during his presidential candidacy. According to the district court, these include "explicit, direct statements of President Trump's animus towards Muslims...." The government protested that many of the statements were made before President Trump became a government official, but the court considered them relevant anyway. Furthermore, the court viewed the government's claim that national security is the primary purpose of the EO as, at best, a "post hoc, secondary justification for an executive action rooted in religious animus."

Denying Custom Floral Arrangement to Same-Sex Couple Violated Law

In State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc., 187 Wash. 2d 804 (Wash. 2017), the court ruled that the defendants, a Southern Baptist and her floral company, discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation by refusing on the basis of religious convictions to provide custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The court also ruled that the owner was per se personally liable under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The court ruled that WLAD is a neutral, generally applicable law with a rational basis; and, thus, its enforcement was not in violation of the defendant's free exercise rights. The court added that WLAD would be consistent with the First Amendment even if strict scrutiny applied and rejected the defendant's argument that the company's floral arrangements were a form of protected "expression" under the Free Speech Clause. The court also ruled that the defendant stated no free association claim against application of the WLAD or CPA.

No Claim Against Church for Publishing Baptism Allegedly Leading to Kidnapping and Torture

In Doe v. First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa, Oklahoma, No. 115182, 2017 WL 1332134 (Okla. Feb. 22, 2017), the court ruled that the church autonomy doctrine precludes the plaintiff's breach of contract and tort action against First Presbyterian Church for publication of his baptism, allegedly leading to his kidnapping and torture by extremists in Syria. Although a nonmember, the plaintiff volunteered for baptism but alleged that he made the church aware of the need for confidentiality. Immediately after his baptism, the plaintiff traveled to Syria. Radical Muslims who had learned of his conversion on the internet kidnapped, tortured and threatened to kill him. The plaintiff escaped and returned clandestinely to the U.S. He sued the church for breach of contract, negligence and outrage. The church argued that the public nature of baptism is an integral part of its understanding of the sacrament. As a result, the court determined that the plaintiff's claims were predicated on religious belief, and, therefore, the church autonomy doctrine precluded the subject's claims.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Precludes Student's Claims Against College

In Doe v. Pontifical College Josephinum, No. 16AP-300, 2017 WL 1180661 (Ohio App. Mar. 30, 2017), the court of appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over a student's breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unauthorized disclosure of educational records and unjust enrichment claims against the pontifical college where he was enrolled. The college expelled him pursuant to an investigation in which the vice rector determined that the student was involved in homosexual activity. The court determined that the legal questions presented were inextricably intertwined with the underlying disciplinary process that led to his expulsion.

Judge Censured for Not Performing Same-Sex Marriages

In In re Neely, 390 P. 3d 728 (Wyo. Mar. 7, 2017), the Supreme Court of Wyoming ruled that disciplining a judge who stated she would not be able to perform same-sex marriages based on her religious convictions serves the compelling state interest of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. Judge Ruth Neely is a Christian and member of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. As a judge, she may perform, but is not required to perform, marriage ceremonies. Against Judge Neely's First Amendment defenses, the court ruled that the state has a compelling interest in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary by enforcing the rules requiring independence and impartiality. The court ruled that Judge Neely violated several rules of judicial conduct, including the obligation to promote confidence in the judiciary, to uphold the law impartially and with fairness, and not to manifest bias, prejudice or harassment. As punishment, the court called for public censure and has required Judge Neely either not to perform any marriage ceremonies or to perform them regardless of a couple's sexual orientation.

Fair Housing Act Injunction Entered Due to Religious Discrimination

In United States v. Town of Colorado City, Arizona, No. 3:12-v-8123-HRH, 2017 WL 1384353 (D. Ariz. Ap. 18, 2017), the court entered an extensive injunction in connection with the denial of housing rights and unlawful policing of residents at the behest of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Specifically, the court found that Colorado City and the City of Hildale, Utah, engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against non-FLDS individuals under pressure from the FLDS in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale or rental of dwellings and coercing, intimidating, threatening or interfering with individuals in the exercise of enjoyment of the right to equal housing opportunities in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

RFRA Claims Stated Due to Rezoning Denial and Refusal to Permit Demolition

In Village of West Dundee v. First United Methodist Church of West Dundee, No. 2-15-0278 (Ill.App. 2d Dist. Mar. 7, 2017), the defendant complained that the city denied it a permit to demolish an abandoned historic building for increased parking while issuing demolition permits for at least three other structures in the Historic District. In a cross-complaint, the defendant argued that this violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and amounted to inverse condemnation or a "taking." The court of appeal vacated judgment against the defendant in circuit court, including an order that if the church did not repair the building within 14 days, the village was authorized to undertake the repairs and to place a lien on the property for the costs. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had not exhausted its administrative remedies before filing its RLUIPA counterclaim, but the appeals court dispatched with this argument in circumstances where the plaintiff instituted the court proceedings by bringing an action for code enforcement. Next, the appeals court credited the defendant's argument that repairing the building would be financially ruinous and, thus, that refusing demolition amounted to a substantial burden on the defendant's free exercise of its religion. The court also agreed that the church stated a claim for unequal treatment under RLUIPA, as well as inverse condemnation.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Applies to Pastor's Claims Against His Church

In Speller v. St. Stephen Lutheran Church of Drayton Plains, No. 330739, 2017 WL 1190933 (Mich.App. Mar. 28, 2017), a pastor filed an eight-count complaint against his former church for alleged wrongful conduct in attempting to oust him, which he claims led to his "blacklisting" in the church and an inability to practice his profession as a Lutheran pastor. The court disagreed with him that this matter could be resolved by applying neutral principles of law. It ruled that the complaint "essentially presents an internal church dispute between the church and plaintiff relating to his status and employment" and implicates the church's constitution and bylaws, subjective judgments of religious officials and governing bodies concerning his performance as pastor, defendants' alleged wrongful conduct in attempting to circumvent the church rules to oust him, internal church communications and the disciplinary action taken against him by the church. "Resolution of these matters would necessarily require the court to stray into matters of internal church governance and discipline, which are not subjects over which a civil court has jurisdiction."

Courts Adopt Differing Approaches to Church Property Disputes

Hierarchical Deference Approach Applied

In Heartland Presbytery v. Presbyterian Church of Stanley, Inc., 390 P. 3d 581 (Kans. App. 2017), the court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the internal rules of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (PCUSA) control a property dispute between the hierarchical denomination and a local church congregation after a majority of the congregation voted to leave the denomination over certain theological differences relating to, inter alia, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the exclusivity of Christianity for salvation and the authority of Scriptures. The court ruled that the district court properly applied the principle of hierarchical deference, which is the doctrine that deference should be given to the highest church body to which an issue has been presented. That body determined that the members of the staying faction who desire to continue their affiliation with the denomination are entitled to the disputed property. But even if the neutral principles of law approach applied, the court ruled that the Book of Order's requirement that the property be held in trust for the use and benefit of PCUSA should control the disposition of the property. The court did not find for PCUSA that the appellants waived their right to appeal by relinquishing their membership in the church and joining another church.   

Neutral Principles of Law Applied

In Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area v. Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church, Inc., No. A16-0945, 2017 WL 1436050 (Minn. App. Ap. 24, 2017), the court determined that it could decide a dispute between PCUSA and another congregation under a neutral principles of law approach and ruled in favor of the congregation. The court decided that it was proper to decide the lawsuit because earlier versions of the Book of Order did not contain a clause found in the newest version stating that property is a tool for the accomplishment of the mission of Jesus Christ in the world and because "there is no evidence that otherwise suggests that the property dispute poses a question of church doctrine or polity." Additionally, the court cautioned generally against "compulsory deference to religious authority in resolving church property disputes." The court went on to decide that by amendment of its bylaws adopting trust language contained in the Book of Order, the congregation agreed to hold its property in trust for the use and benefit of PCUSA; however, the church retained the right in its articles of incorporation to amend those bylaws and did so to revoke the trust and remove all trust language.

Religious Institutions in the News

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions