Bixler v. Scientology: Amicus Brief Form Church Law Institute

NO.
22-60
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER &
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CELEBRITY
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL,
Petitioners,
v.
CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER,

CEDRIC BIXLER-ZAVALA, JANE DOE #1 & JANE DOE #2,
Respondents.
__________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
Court of Appeal of California,
Second Appellate District, Division Five
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

CHURCH LAW INSTITUTE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
LARRY L. CRAIN
COUNSEL OF RECORD
5214 MARYLAND WAY
SUITE 402
BRENTWOOD, TN 37027
(625) 376-2600
CRAIN.LARRY@GMAIL.COM
AUGUST 19, 2022 COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE

SUPREME COURT PRESS ♦ (888) 958-5705 ♦ BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Where a parishioner freely executes a religious
arbitration agreement with her church, does the First
Amendment prohibit enforcement of the agreement if
the parishioner leaves the faith?
Does the First Amendment restrict the terms on
which a Church may accept members into its faith?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
IDENTITY AND INTEREST
OF AMICUS CURIAE ..............................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ................. 3
I. THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS’
RULING HAS A PROFOUND CHILLING EFFECT
UPON THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CHURCHES,
SYNAGOGUES AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL
BODIES TO RELY, AS AN ESSENTIAL
COMPONENT OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH
THEIR MEMBERS, ON COVENANTAL SAFEGUARDS
TO PROTECT THEIR ORGANIZATIONAL INTEGRITY
AND THE OPERATION OF THEIR MINISTRIES....... 3
CONCLUSION............................................................ 6
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
TABLE OF AUT HO RITIES
CASES
Doe v. Apostolic Assembly of Faith in Christ
Jesus, 452 F.Supp.3d 503 (W.D. Tex.
2020) .................................................................... 5
U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l
Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) ......... 4
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
U.S. Const. amend. I ............................................ i, 2, 4
JUDICIAL RULES
Sup. Ct. R. 37 .............................................................. 1
Sup. Ct. R. 37.2 ........................................................... 1
Sup. Ct. R. 37.6............................................................ 1
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Hartford Institute for Religious Research,
Fast Facts About American Religion, http:
//hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_
facts.html#sizecong (last searched August
22, 2022 ................................................................ 3
Rodney A. Smolla,
RIGHTS & LIABILITIES IN MEDIA CONTENT:
INTERNET, BROADCAST, & PRINT
(2d ed. 2011) ........................................................ 4
1
IDENTITY AND INTEREST

OF AMICUS CURIAE
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, the Church
Law Institute respectfully submits this brief amicus
curiae in support of Petitioners Church of Scientology
International, Religious Technology Center & Church
Of Scientology Celebrity Centre International.1
The Church Law Institute is non-profit public
interest group that provides legal representation to
churches in various denominations on a national level
regarding issues dealing with religious liberty and
ecclesiastical concerns. Its clients include both
hierarchical and congregational churches, in disputes
that span a broad spectrum of constitutional and
church organizational issues. Its services include
litigation of church conflicts in state and federal courts,
and conducting legal seminars designed to deal pro-
actively with legal conflicts facing churches today
before they occur. In addition, Church Law Institute
provides legal consultation to churches in the drafting
1 Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.2, all parties with counsel

listed on the docket have consented to the filing of this brief.
Counsel of record for all listed parties received notice at least 10
days prior to the due date of the Amicus Curiae’s intention to file
this brief. Copies of email correspondence evidencing such
consent have been filed with the Clerk of the Court.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, Amicus Curiae affirms
that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in
part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution
intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No
person other than Amicus Curiae, its members, or its counsel
made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.
2
of organizational documents such as church bylaws

and other documents dealing with internal church
governance.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The institutional autonomy and integrity of
churches and places of worship generally depends
entirely upon their ability to govern the intra-church
relationship with their members. This core religious
value necessarily involves the freedom to determine
both the nature of this relationship, and the respective
rights of the church and its members in resolving
intra-church disputes in a manner that is consistent
with its religious teachings.
The relationship between a place of worship and
its members is uniquely an ecclesiastical concern that
is protected by the First Amendment religious clauses.
The holding of the California Court of Appeals infringes
upon this time-honored religious freedom and amounts
to a usurpation of the church’s jurisdiction to govern
itself in accordance with its religious practices, pre-
cepts and religious tenets.
3
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I. THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS’ RULING
HAS A PROFOUND CHILLING EFFECT UPON THE
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES
AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL BODIES TO RELY,
AS AN E SSENTIAL C OMPONENT OF T HEIR
RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR MEMBERS, ON
COVENANTAL SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT THEIR
ORGANIZATIONAL INTEGRITY AND THE OPERATION
OF THEIR MINISTRIES.
While there is no comprehensive directory of the

precise number of churches nationally, it has been
estimated that there are in excess of 350,000 congrega-
tions of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox denomi-
nations in America.2 All of these churches, whether
hierarchical or congregational in their form of church
polity and governance, rely like their secular counter-
parts, on well-established, neutral principles of law as
the bedrock of their contractual dealings both
internally with their staff and members, as well as
externally within the business community.
Regardless of their denominational affiliation or
form of ecclesiastical governance, many churches
incorporate into their foundational documents alternate
dispute resolution mechanisms in order to avoid liti-
gation of internal disputes with their members. In
particular, those churches that adhere to biblical
2 Hartford Institute for Religious Research, Fast Facts About

American Religion, http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_
facts.html#sizecong (last searched August 22, 2022)
4
teachings as the foundational core of their religious

tenets and doctrinal beliefs many times incorporate
into their church polity the scriptural admonition
against litigation in the civil arena of internal church-
member conflicts.3 This biblical precept is echoed in
modern day constitutional jurisprudence by what is
commonly referred to as the ecclesiastical abstention
doctrine which serves as a jurisdictional bar to the
litigation in civil courts of doctrinal and church gov-
ernance disputes.4
The decision below portends a profound chilling
effect upon the freedom of churches, synagogues and
other ecclesiastical bodies to rely, as an essential
component of their relationship with their members,
on covenantal safeguards to protect their organizational
integrity and the operation of their ministries.
Questions of church membership and discipline of
church members lie at the center of a church’s organi-
3 CORINTHIANS 6:1-8: Dare any of you, having a matter against

another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the
saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And
if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the
smallest matters? . . . Now therefore, it is already an utter fail-
ure for you that you go to law against one another.
4 “The First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that
civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.”
Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l
Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969). They must be
decided “without resolving underlying controversies over reli-
gious doctrine.” Id. Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine,
civil courts “abstain from adjudicating issues involving theological
or spiritual judgment or the internal governance of religious
bodies,” leaving those issues instead “to appropriate religious
tribunals.” 1 Rodney A. Smolla, RIGHTS & LIABILITIES IN MEDIA
CONTENT: INTERNET, BROADCAST, & PRINT § 6:25 (2d ed. 2011)
5
zational autonomy and uniformly invoke the ecclesi-

astical abstention doctrine. If former church mem-
bers are permitted to ignore contractual limitations on
civil litigation merely by withdrawing from the
church, then the practical effect of this ruling is to
render such covenantal agreements meaningless. Be-
cause of the central importance of these considerations
to the effective operation of churches and religious
bodies, courts have routinely applied the ecclesiastical
abstention doctrine in cases concerning church mem-
bership, employment policies, clergy discipline, member
discipline, church leadership elections, church property
disputes, and defamation suits based on pastoral
statements. Doe v. Apostolic Assembly of Faith in Christ
Jesus, 452 F.Supp.3d 503, 533 (W.D. Tex. 2020).
The lower court’s ruling that waiver of civil trial
and the requirement of religious arbitration are too
high a “price” to pay for joining a faith represents an
unprecedented form of governmental hostility to reli-
gion. If not reviewed by this Court, this ruling may
soon be cited by disgruntled members from virtually
any denomination to compel churches, synagogues
and other religious bodies to participate in protracted
civil litigation effectively nullifying otherwise binding
arbitration agreements and other forms of alternative
religious dispute resolution provisions. Moreover, the
Court’s finding that members who enter into these
covenantal agreements are only bound so long as they
are “believers” or adherents to the church’s doctrinal
teachings is antithetical to longstanding legal and
constitutional traditions protecting church autonomy,
and would inevitably make civil courts arbiters of reli-
gious doctrine.
6
CONCLUSION
By granting review, this Court can preserve the
religious liberty right of churches, synagogues, mosques
and other religious institutions to exercise self-govern-
ance in a manner that is consistent with their faith
and doctrine. There are few areas more central to the
exercise of ecclesiastical polity than the relationship
between a church and its members.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY L. CRAIN
COUNSEL OF RECORD
5214 MARYLAND WAY
SUITE 402
BRENTWOOD, TN 37027
(625) 376-2600
CRAIN.LARRY@GMAIL.COM
COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE
AUGUST 19, 2022

Bixler v. Scientology: Amicus Brief Form Church Law Institute

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bixler v. Scientology: Amicus Brief Form Church Law Institute

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NO.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

CHRISSIE CARNELL BIXLER,

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

AUGUST 19, 2022 COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE

IDENTITY AND INTEREST

1 Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.2, all parties with counsel

of organizational documents such as church bylaws

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

While there is no comprehensive directory of the

2 Hartford Institute for Religious Research, Fast Facts About

teachings as the foundational core of their religious

3 CORINTHIANS 6:1-8: Dare any of you, having a matter against

zational autonomy and uniformly invoke the ecclesi-

COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE

AUGUST 19, 2022

You might also like