Askew ex rel. general assembly of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith v. Trustees of the General Assembly of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith Inc.
684 F.3d 413
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Church schism after competing factions led by Roddy Shelton and Kenneth Shelton; Askew aligned with Roddy's faction.
- Kenneth Shelton, as General Overseer, declared Roddy loyalists nonmembers and removed them from the Church in 1992.
- The Church and Corporation governance: Church bylaws vest membership decisions in the General Overseer; the Corporation holds Church assets.
- Askew sues in 2009 alleging fiduciary breaches and asset misappropriation and that Corporation failed to file required financial statements.
- District Court dismissed some counts for lack of standing and others pending membership questions; court later treated standing as a factual issue.
- Appellate court affirms dismissal, applying the non-entanglement First Amendment principle to defer to ecclesiastical decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Askew has standing to sue as a Church member | Askew is a lifelong Church member harmed by excommunication. | Askew is not a Church member due to the 1992 and 2009 declarations. | No standing to sue as to Church-member claims. |
| Whether Askew has standing to sue on behalf of the Corporation | As a Church member, Askew derives standing to pursue Corporation-related relief. | Askew is not a Corporation member; PNCL limits derivative standing to members. | No standing to sue on Corporation-related claims. |
| Whether ecclesiastical decisions about membership are reviewable under neutral principles of law | Neutral principles can resolve membership without intruding on doctrine. | Membership decisions are doctrinal and insulated from civil review under the non-entanglement principle. | Non-entanglement bars civil review of membership excommunication decisions. |
| Whether the August 2009 declaration was a post hoc device to evade jurisdiction | Such declarations could be fraudulent to cloak a civil-judicial end-run. | There is no basis to infer bad faith; Askew's status from 1992 to 2009 already indicated his nonmembership. | No inference of post hoc fraud; no basis to undermine nonmembership finding. |
| Whether the District Court properly dismissed counts asserting harm to the Church and the Corporation | Counts should proceed if standing is recognized and neutral principles apply. | Standing constraints and non-entanglement require dismissal. | Affirmed dismissal based on lack of standing and non-entanglement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012) (ministerial exception; civil courts defer on religious doctrine)
- Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) (no civil review of ecclesiastical decisions; arbitrariness not reviewable)
- Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979) (non-entanglement principle; defer to highest church authority)
- Presbyterian Church in the U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem'l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) (civil courts defer to religious governance; doctrinal issues insulated)
- Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1 (1929) (courts respect ecclesiastical decisions within church governance)
- Scotts African Union Methodist Protestant Church v. Conference of African Union First Colored Methodist Protestant Church, 98 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 1996) (neutral principles of law may apply in church governance disputes)
- Md. & Va. Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc., 396 U.S. 367 (1970) (illustrates neutral principles in church-property context)