The eyes of much of American religion were focused on the lawsuit James Huntsman filed seeking the return of $5 million in tithing he donated to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Faith organizations, including specific religious groups, colleges and universities, as well as charities, didn’t just await a verdict, they had filed their opinions and arguments with the judges who would decide the case in half a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the positions of the Latter-day Saints.

On Friday, they responded with gratitude when a panel of 11 judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the church summary judgment. The judges ruled unanimously in favor of the Latter-day Saints without allowing the case to get to trial.

Related
Unanimous 9th Circuit panel dismisses Huntsman tithing lawsuit. See ruling, church response

“This lawsuit is extraordinary and patently inappropriate, a not-so thinly concealed effort to challenge the church’s belief system under the guise of litigation,” four of the judges wrote. “The majority is correct that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation even on the terms of plaintiff’s own allegations. But it would have done well for the en banc court to recognize the obvious: There is no way in which the plaintiff here could prevail without running headlong into basic First Amendment prohibitions on courts resolving ecclesiastical disputes.”

The faith-based groups, representing tens of millions of religious Americans from Baptists to Methodists and Lutherans and Jewish coalitions, were grateful that the judges closed the door on the idea that donors could claw back donations.

They also were grateful that many of the judges supported the church autonomy doctrine, a long-standing legal precedent that says governments and courts should steer clear of wading into church affairs such as how leaders choose to use donations.

Here’s what they said the ruling means for their faiths and organizations, followed by an explanation of the church autonomy doctrine.

11 major religions

Gene Schaerr represented a group of 11 major religious denominations, from Jewish groups to Protestants and Scientologists.

“We are delighted both at the outcome and also delighted at the concurring opinion written by Judge (Daniel) Bress that we think did a wonderful job of laying out the constitutional church autonomy doctrine and how it applies to this kind of factual situation, and we view it as a complete victory for the church and for religious liberty generally,” he said.

Schaerr said the ruling by the 9th Circuit, which covers the westernmost nine states from Arizona to Hawaii and Montana to Alaska, could help settle two other lawsuits against the Church of Jesus Christ related to tithing. Those cases are pending in courts in the 10th Circuit, which includes Utah.

See below for more on the church autonomy doctrine and a full list of the faiths represented by Schaerr.

Faith-based colleges and universities

BYU attorneys co-authored a brief representing more than 350 Catholic, evangelical and Latter-day Saint schools. The group included the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, and BYU, BYU-Hawaii and BYU-Idaho.

The CCCU won another case in the 9th Circuit in August. That victory in what was called the Hunter case ended a lawsuit that sought to gut the religious exemption Congress included in Title IX.

Related
Crucial new court ruling for Christian schools seals a leader’s legacy

“I am so pleased to see the 9th Circuit ruling the way they did on this and as they did on the Hunter case. It signals the continued protection of our religious liberty and it’s so important to see that work. To see that happening in the 9th Circuit is just incredible,” said David Hoag, the new president of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities.

Faith-based charities

The lawyer representing four nonprofit organizations said Friday’s ruling was important for charities.

“It is standard nonprofit practice to set aside reserves from donated funds, and to invest those reserves to fund future charitable purposes or as a hedge against hard economic times,” John A. Taylor said. “The 9th Circuit’s en banc decision confirms that when charities describe their finances using standard nonprofit industry terms such as ‘reserves’ and ‘earnings of reserve funds’ — as the church did here — they should not have to speak with the precision of a Big 4 auditing firm or face potential fraud liability.”

Taylor also said the ruling is noteworthy “because every nonprofit that makes fundraising promises could be accused of using terms that are imprecise or insufficiently defined, as Mr. Huntsman alleged here.”

“By affirming the dismissal of Mr. Huntsman’s claims, the 9th Circuit has furthered the important humanitarian work of nonprofit organizations like my clients by not endorsing novel fraud theories that would inhibit their future fundraising efforts,” he said.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

The Becket Fund, one of nation’s most influential religious liberty organizations, also filed what is known as an amicus brief in the case. The brief focused on the church autonomy doctrine and the right of churches to govern their internal affairs without government intrusion.

The brief argued that determining how tithing is used is an inherently religious question and that the courts can’t be in the business of second-guessing how churches make those decisions.

“First, I would just say it was a pretty remarkable ruling to have 11 judges rule for the church, and hold that President (Gordon B.)Hinckley, when he told members how tithing would be used, he absolutely spoke the truth,” said Eric Baxter, who co-authored Becket’s brief. “With all the noise that’s been made about this case, it’s pretty remarkable to have 11 judges confirm the truth of the church’s statements.”

Baxter noted that six of the 11 judges chose to rule for the church without using the church autonomy doctrine.

“But having five judges note that would have been another way for the church to win, I think is significant,” Baxter said, “and sends a message that other courts should be paying attention to.”

What is the church autonomy doctrine?

The attorney who represented the church during the hearing of the en banc panel of 9th Circuit Court judges, Paul Clement, told the judges they could reject Huntsman’s claims on either the merits of his arguments or because of the church autonomy doctrine.

The judges split the baby, six signing on to an opinion based on the merits and five signing opinions based on the doctrine that courts should not interfere in church affairs.

“Although plaintiff’s claims can be rejected even as he styles them, which is the approach the majority takes, we should not indulge in the illusion that this is merely a secular lawsuit about civil fraud,” four judges wrote in a concurring opinion. “Under the First Amendment, the plaintiff’s challenge to the church’s understanding of tithing is not susceptible to resolution in a court of law, lest the judiciary wrest control from religious authorities over matters of theological concern.”

135
Comments

A fifth judge wrote a solo opinion that rejected the either/or idea. Judge Patrick Bumatay took 30 of the 63 pages of opinions issued Friday to say the case should have been dismissed solely because the court didn’t belong in the church’s affairs at all.

“Our authority is limited. Temporal. With no say over what is eternal,” he wrote. “Given that the Constitution demands that we not enter the sphere of religious faith, the majority vastly oversteps our authority by reaching the merits.”

Schaerr said the Friday’s ruling could have an impact on two other tithing cases, one pending at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the other in U.S. District Court in Utah, which is part of the 10th Circuit.

“All three of these cases are essentially challenges to the church’s ability to determine for itself how it uses its its own resources,” Schaerr said, “and there’s probably no more important issue of church government than how a religious body chooses to use its own resources. I think these five judges are absolutely right that it’s just not possible, consistent with the First Amendment, for these kinds of claims to be litigated in court at all.”

The full list of faiths that joined one friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Latter-day Saints

  • Agudath Israel of America (“Agudath Israel”), a 100-year-old nonprofit Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization
  • The Christian and Missionary Alliance, a U.S. evangelical Christian denomination
  • The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the moral concerns and public policy entity of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination
  • The California Southern Baptist Convention
  • The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, the national administrative body for the Seventh-day Adventist Church
  • The General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church, the administrative arm of The United Methodist Church
  • The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, with congregations in nearly 150 countries
  • The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, an incorporated group of rabbis, lawyers and professionals who practice Judaism and are committed to defending religious liberty
  • The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, a national Lutheran denomination headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri
  • The Church of Scientology International
  • The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.