OPINION:
America’s judicial system is a historical oddity. That litigants can seek judicial review over disputes as varied as small claims, product liability and contract disputes is an aberration. Still, despite Americans’ laudable access to settling disputes in a court of law, some issues make our courts a bad fit.
Disputes between religious factions are chief among them. In 1871, the Supreme Court, considering a case in which rival religious factions claimed true authority over a church — both property and worshippers — suggested that litigants look elsewhere to settle their dispute.
Far from judicial laziness, the justices established an important legal principle: The First Amendment requires judges to exercise judicial humility and decline to sit in judgment over purely religious disputes. As the justices put it in Watson v. Jones, it “would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies if anyone aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to secular courts and have them reversed.”
Bethesda University in California faces such a case of judicial second-guessing. Founded out of the Korean Pentecostal movement, the university’s board faced a challenge from a rival religious faction that assumed seats on the board. When Bethesda removed these prospective board members, the factional members sued in state court.
To borrow from Watson, the rival faction felt “aggrieved by” the university’s decision to remove them from the board and appealed “to secular courts” to have that decision reversed. Rather than follow the example set by the Watson court, the California court found itself “as competent in the ecclesiastical law and religious faith” of Bethesda University. It determined that the rival faction was religious enough to serve, despite the school’s determination to the contrary.
How Bethesda — or any religious institution — chooses to operate is a sacred right protected by the First Amendment. Suppose a court can evaluate the religious character of Bethesda University, including who is Pentecostal enough to sit on its board. In that case, it can also tell a church whom it must hire to preach its beliefs, teach its faith and carry out its mission.
Thankfully, the First Amendment strikes that balance in favor of religious autonomy, or as the courts have termed it, “ecclesiastical abstention.” Secular courts, incompetent as they are to evaluate the religious character of religious organizations, must abstain from sitting in judgment over religious disputes.
As helpful as our judicial system is in resolving disputes, our courts are and ought to remain categorically prohibited by the First Amendment from involving themselves in religious organizations’ faith, mission and character.
This is the doctrine of church autonomy. For at least 153 years, the Supreme Court has unmistakably held that the nation’s courts lack jurisdiction over matters involving religious disputes. In our highly litigious society, this may leave some at a loss: How might disputes be resolved if not by the courts?
That tension does not require resolution. Other means of resolving disputes include mediation, arbitration by private adjudication or simply sitting down to work things out. Appealing religious disputes to secular courts is not merely inadequate but potentially injurious to religious liberty writ large.
For Bethesda University, at least, the First Liberty Institute recently asked the Supreme Court to uphold its 153-year precedent. Our petition suggests some courts have arrogated to themselves a right not given them in the Constitution. If left unreversed, the California court’s decision threatens the autonomy of religious institutions — churches, synagogues, mosques, colleges, charities — nationwide.
About 75 years after the court decided Watson v. Jones, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding. The justices explained that the principle of church autonomy articulated by Watson perpetuates “a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular control or manipulation,” giving religious institutions “power to decide for themselves, free from state interference” matters critical to the perpetuation of the religious faith, doctrine and mission.
Refraining from wading into such religious disputes preserves the meaningful work our courts provide — work that continues to mark our justice system as historically unique.
• Jeremy Dys is senior counsel for the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all. The firm represents Bethesda University. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.