Opinion ID: 2769429
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: First Amendment and Judicial Estoppel

Text: Knowing that to resolve the disputes in this case this court must decide who controls Hutterville, we turn to whether the First Amendment will permit such an inquiry. The district court answered this question in the negative, reasoning the governance issue “is deeply intertwined with the religious dispute of who is properly 7 The Waldners argue they, like the plaintiff in Drevlow v. Lutheran Church, Mo. Synod, 991 F.2d 468, 472 (8th Cir. 1993), should be given an evidentiary hearing or “an opportunity to prove [their] secular allegations at trial.” Unlike Drevlow, the path to the Waldners’ requested relief necessarily leads through the religious dispute. See id. at 471-72 (“At the present stage of this litigation we are unable to predict that the evidence offered at trial will definitely involve the district court in an impermissible inquiry” because “[t]he [defendant] Synod has not offered any religious explanation for its actions which might entangle the court in a religious controversy.”). -14- a member of the true church and therefore also a member of the colony and a voting member of Hutterville.” The Waldners counter that church membership is central to the governance question but that there is no live dispute because, in their view, “Hutterville has always been a . . . Group 1 Hutterite Church Colony, and the Group 1 Church hierarchy conclusively determined that Wipf is not a member and has no right to speak or act for Hutterville.” They therefore claim, “Because civil courts are bound by and cannot question the Church’s determination of its own membership, there is no ‘religious dispute.’” The Waldners demand “the opportunity to prove . . . that any claimed ‘religious dispute’ is a sham and a fraud and that they are, in fact, Hutterville’s officers and directors or were unlawfully removed.” The Waldners’ current arguments contradict the position they took before the South Dakota Supreme Court. Rather than argue the state court did have jurisdiction and should decide the governance question in their favor (as they argue here), the Waldners in state court argued the question was untouchable and could not be resolved by a secular court in either faction’s favor. In Hutterville I, the Waldners maintained a court could not determine “who controls Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc.” without determining “the identity of [Hutterville church’s] decision making body” or members. Brief of Appellees, Hutterville I, 791 N.W.2d 169 (No. 25553), 2010 WL 5516994, at , 19-20. Both questions, the Waldners asserted, were “religious in nature and reserved to the church.” Id. at . Because “the parties dispute[d] the validity of the church’s excommunication of [the Wipf faction members] and who the true senior elders of the church [we]re,” the Waldners reasoned that inquiry into the governance question entailed an unconstitutional intrusion by the court. Id. In Hutterville II, the Waldners similarly argued, “[T]he decision as to who are members of Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc., cannot be decided without extensive inquiry into religious doctrine and beliefs of the Hutterian faith and South Dakota courts have no constitutional basis to interfere.” Brief of Appellant, Hutterville II, 808 N.W.2d 678 (No. 25877), 2011 WL 7497040, at . -15- In both instances, the South Dakota Supreme Court agreed, ruling it could not determine church leadership or who was a member of Hutterville Colony’s church. See Hutterville II, 808 N.W.2d at 686; Hutterville I, 791 N.W.2d at 179-80. Having twice succeeded in foreclosing judicial determination and recognition of the proper directors and officers of Hutterville, the Waldners bring this federal action questioning the legitimacy of the Wipf faction’s claim to Hutterville and asserting the legitimacy of their own offices. We will not permit the Waldners now to claim the religious questions are a “sham” or that these issues have been resolved all along. Nor will we permit the Waldners “the opportunity to prove . . . that they are, in fact, Hutterville’s officers and directors or were unlawfully removed.” “[T]he doctrine of judicial estoppel ‘generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.’” EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 679 F.3d 657, 679 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001)). In applying the doctrine, we look to three non-exclusive factors: “First, a party’s later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position. Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second court was misled. Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party’s later inconsistent position introduces no risk of inconsistent court determinations, and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity. A third consideration is whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.” Id. (quoting New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750-51). The Waldners successively convinced the South Dakota Supreme Court that (1) the question of which faction has -16- authority to direct Hutterville required determinations of church membership, the validity of excommunications, and the proper designation of the “true” Schmiedeleut, and (2) inquiry into these questions were impermissible for secular courts. See Hutterville I, 791 N.W.2d at 175-80. The Waldners do not contend these questions have been resolved since that time. When questioned at oral argument in this case, the Waldners could not identify any intervening ecclesiastical decisions which might have settled the questions. Nor do they identify newly discovered evidence resolving the governance issues in a way that permits the court to circumvent religious inquiries. At most, the Waldners argue the attorneys “invented, orchestrated and engineered a sham and fraudulent ‘religious dispute’ to conceal their scheme and to shield themselves from scrutiny and liability.” The Waldners fail to explain what it means to have a “fraudulent” religious dispute, and even if correct that the attorneys orchestrated the dispute between Hutterville’s factions, this does not negate the religious questions they previously highlighted—i.e., which excommunications were valid and which is the true church. These issues, the Waldners once argued, are both unavoidable and unanswerable, and we fail to see how the origin of the dispute makes these inquiries now any less necessary or any less controlled by religious matters.