Source: http://religiondocbox.com/Christianity/73199634-Pieeeae-ciei-cn-iue-raaiec-pi-iee.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:56:12+00:00

Document:
2 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment requires courts resolving a property dispute within a hierarchical church to give legal effect to a pre-existing trust provision in the church s canons.
7 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amicus Curiae The Episcopal Church in South Carolina has firsthand experience with application of Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979), to disputes within hierarchical religions. 1 The Episcopal Church formed a diocese in South Carolina as the result of the organization of The Episcopal Church s General Convention; that diocese acknowledged the authority of The Episcopal Church s Constitution in The diocese in South Carolina has participated in The Episcopal Church, and has conducted its affairs, as a subordinate unit of The Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church in South Carolina is currently involved in litigation with a dissenting faction that seeks to subvert the hierarchical structure of The Episcopal Church. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina et al. v. The Episcopal Church, No CP (S.C. Ct. Common Pleas). In that litigation, a former Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in South Carolina has renounced The Episcopal Church and has been removed from his position as Bishop by Church authorities, yet continues to hold himself out as Bishop of the Diocese. The South Carolina trial court has expressed an intention to apply the neutral principles approach approved by this Court in Jones, even though the dispute between the parties includes an 1 Pursuant to this Court s Rule 37.6, amici curiae state that no person other than amici curiae and their counsel authored this brief or made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of the brief. Counsel of record for all parties received notice of the filing of this brief compliant with this Court s Rule 37.2 and each has consented to the filing of this brief.
10 4 holding that Windwood was subject to the trust clause whether hierarchical deference or neutral principles were applied. Windwood Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7663 (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2012). The Texas appeals court later reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings in light of the Texas Supreme Court decision below. Windwood Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 114 (Tex. App. Jan. 7, 2014). In May 2014, Windwood terminated its affiliation with Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in violation of the Book of Order, which requires the consent of PNC before such a withdrawal can be effected. Windwood has since refused to permit PNC on the property. In the second action, in 2014, First Presbyterian Church of Houston ( FPCH ), one of the oldest and largest congregations in the PNC, and which the PNC created in 1839 under church law, sued the PNC in Texas state court. That suit seeks to nullify the congregation s repeated commitments to hold property in trust for the church. Citing the opinions below, the congregation obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the PNC from following its own ecclesiastical procedures and those set out in the church s governing Book of Order, including provisions similar to those obtained against Grace Presbytery and described above. The congregation s suit seeks a declaration from the Texas court that FPCH owns its property free-and-clear of any beneficial interest of PNC. The experiences of amici curiae Grace Presbytery and PNC demonstrate firsthand that the opinions below invite courts to intrude into the core religious functions of hierarchical churches under the guise of deciding property disputes.
13 7 chical churches. Only this Court can ensure that the First Amendment rights of hierarchical churches and their adherents do not vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and that hierarchical churches are governed by uniform First Amendment standards. Though the appropriate scope of Jones is a matter of confusion among state courts, the misapplication of this Court s precedent in the decision below is clear. Despite approving the neutral principles approach, this Court in Jones unambiguously held that, [t]hrough appropriate reversionary clauses and trust provisions, religious societies can specify what is to happen to church property in the event of a particular contingency, or what religious body will determine the ownership in the event of a schism or doctrinal controversy. 443 U.S. at 603. And this Court specified that modifying the deeds or the corporate charter was not required; [a]lternatively, amending the constitution of the general church... to recite an express trust would protect the hierarchical church. Id. at 606. Hierarchical churches throughout the country have relied on this portion of the holding of Jones. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of Jones, The Episcopal Church adopted an express trust through the Dennis Canon to ensure... that the faction loyal to the hierarchical church will retain the church property in the event of a doctrinal dispute. 443 U.S. at 606. Notwithstanding this Court s seemingly unambiguous instruction that the civil courts [are] bound to give effect to the result of such trust provisions (id.), the Supreme Court of Texas declined to give the Dennis Canon any legal force, finding it invalidated by the neutral principles of Texas state law.
14 8 Permitting a local parish to withdraw from a hierarchical church and take church property with it even if the local and central churches have previously agreed that the property is held in trust for the central church poses a significant risk to the church s ability to adopt a position on a controversial doctrinal issue. And the experience of amici confirms that applying neutral principles to church disputes poses substantial risks to constitutionally protected church autonomy reaching far beyond the ownership of property. The entrenched split among the state courts, the important implications for the religious freedoms of hierarchical churches, and the substantial financial stakes all counsel strongly in favor of this Court s review. But the case for review here is even more compelling because the Texas Supreme Court retroactively applied a new reading of Jones to impair The Episcopal Church s freedom to organize itself according to its religious viewpoint. Before the decision below, the state of Texas had declined to adopt the Jones neutral principles approach; Texas courts consistently deferred to the decisions of religious authorities in disputes over church property. The retroactive application of neutral principles of state law to override The Episcopal Church s religious choice to hold property in trust for the general church magnifies the First Amendment injury. It defeats the reasonable expectations of hierarchical churches, jeopardizes billions of dollars of property that churches have attempted to safeguard from dissident parishioners through express trust provisions akin to the one invalidated here, and creates uncertainty regarding how, if at all, they may direct the organization of their affairs and shield their church structure from civil lawsuits.
15 9 ARGUMENT I. THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT S DECISION INVADES THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS OF HIERARCHICAL CHURCHES. Over 130 years ago, this Court held that, in the event of a legal dispute within a hierarchical church (such as The Episcopal Church), whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 727 (1872). See also Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694, (2012) (same). In Jones v. Wolf, this Court reaffirmed that the [First] Amendment requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church organization, but concluded that, in some circumstances, where church property disputes are at issue, courts may apply neutral principles of law to resolve those disputes. 443 U.S. at 602. By reading Jones to apply neutral principles of law even where doing so would conflict with resolution of an issue of church polity made by the highest body in a hierarchical church, the Supreme Court of Texas, in this context, has deprived the First Amendment of all force.
20 14 tions and canons of both [The Episcopal Church] and the Diocese in which they are located, and each diocese must accede to [The Episcopal Church s] constitution and canons. Pet n App. 66a; see also Episcopal Church in Diocese of Conn. v. Gauss, 28 A.3d 302, 325 (Conn. 2011) (enforcing Dennis Canon because local members agreed to be bound by the constitutions and canons of The Episcopal Church and the Diocese in 1956 when they affiliated with The Episcopal Church ), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct (2012). Moreover, The Episcopal Church explicitly declared that property was to be held in trust for it, and, before this dispute arose, the local church agreed. The language of the Dennis Canon is unequivocal: All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. Pet n App. 36a. And the Dennis Canon merely codifie[s] in explicit terms a trust relationship that has been implicit in the relationship between local parishes and dioceses since the founding of [The Episcopal Church] in Gauss, 28 A.3d at 324 (citation omitted). In other words, all parties here did what they thought was necessary, before this dispute arose, to ensure... that the faction loyal to the hierarchical church w[ould] retain the church property in the event of a dispute. Jones, 443 U.S. at 606. Indeed, the timing of the adoption of the Dennis Canon a mere two months after this Court issued Jones confirms the parties intent to implement the safeguard that this Court had provided. This Court s decision in Jones mandates that the Church s action be respected.
25 19 law issues concerning corporate control and interests in property. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina et al. v. The Episcopal Church, No CP (S.C. Ct. Common Pleas Jan. 23, 2013). According to that court, when resolving church dispute cases, South Carolina courts are to apply the neutral principles of law approach. Id. (quoting All Saints Parish Waccamaw, 685 S.E.2d at 171). This approach turns this Court s precedent on its head. Not only has this Court never permitted application of neutral principles of law to determine which individual is the proper head of a church or one of its subunits; it has squarely held that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church s determination of who can act as its ministers. Hosanna-Tabor, 132 S. Ct. at 704; Watson, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 727 ( [W]henever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them... ). If a neutral principles approach is to be reconcilable with the Constitution, it must be more carefully limited to avoid inserting civil courts into these fundamentally ecclesiastical issues. 3. The decision of the court below not only has significant effects on the First Amendment rights of The Episcopal Church and other religious entities, but has far-reaching financial implications for The Episcopal Church, its nearly 7,000 congregations, and its millions of members, as well as for all other hierarchical religious organizations across the country.
27 21 force directly affects the ability of these and all other hierarchical churches to use trust provisions to safeguard their property against breakaway factions. The value of that property may reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. See Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on the Constitution, 105th Cong (1998) (statement of Marc Stern, Director of Legal Department, American Jewish Congress) (stating that the reported value of religious property in just two States is $22.1 billion); It s Time to Examine Costs of Tax-Free Property, Indianapolis Star, Aug. 23, 2007, at 12 (estimating the value of church property nationwide at $150 billion). The profound financial implications of this frequently recurring and sharply disputed issue as well as its equally significant implications for the First Amendment rights of hierarchical churches and their millions of members provide a compelling basis for this Court s review. II. THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF A CASE-DISPOSITIVE STANDARD HEIGHTENS THE FIRST AMENDMENT INJURY. This case presents a particularly compelling vehicle for this Court s review. Unlike previous cases in which this Court has denied review see, e.g., Falls Church v. Protestant Episcopal Church in U.S., 740 S.E.2d 530 (Va. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct (2014) the decision by the Supreme Court of Texas to apply neutral principles of state law to negate the Church s unambiguous trust provision was plainly dispositive. Under the hierarchical approach or under the intent-focused application of neutral principles endorsed in Jones, Petitioners would have prevailed and retained control of their property.
JULY 2004 LAW REVIEW RELIGIOUS MESSAGE EXCLUDED FROM CHRISTMAS DISPLAYS IN PARK. James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D James C.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.