DOE v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA
2017 OK 15
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (John Doe) converted from Islam to Christianity and requested baptism by Rev. James D. Miller at First Presbyterian Church (FPC) in Tulsa on Dec. 30, 2012; he was never a church member.
- Baptism was performed in a public worship service (not televised); church tradition and its Book of Order require recording baptisms in the parish register and routinely listing baptisms in the church bulletin, which is also posted online.
- Plaintiff alleges he told the church confidentiality was necessary because he planned to return to Syria; after the baptism and its online publication, Plaintiff says he was kidnapped, tortured, and forced to flee Syria, suffering physical and psychological injuries.
- Plaintiff sued FPC and Miller for breach of contract, negligence, and outrage (emotional distress).
- Trial court initially denied a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, but later dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the church autonomy (ecclesiastical) doctrine.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding the publication of the baptism was intertwined with ecclesiastical doctrine and practice and therefore beyond civil‑court jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether publication of Plaintiff's baptism online is an ecclesiastical matter | Posting is secular conduct (publication) and not protected by First Amendment; torts arise from publication, not belief | Publication is part of sacramental practice and church custom (recording/publicizing baptisms); falls within ecclesiastical jurisdiction | Held: Publication was doctrinally rooted and within ecclesiastical cognizance; civil courts lack subject‑matter jurisdiction |
| Whether tort claims (negligence, outrage) can proceed despite religious context | Torts are secular harms and should be adjudicable even if religion motivated conduct | Tort claims are inseparable from performance/publication of a sacrament; First Amendment bars adjudication | Held: Claims are inextricably tied to sacramental practice and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether lack of church membership defeats ecclesiastical jurisdiction | Plaintiff never became a member and thus did not consent to church jurisdiction | Consent to the sacrament (baptism) and participation in the ceremony sufficed to bring the act within ecclesiastical scope | Held: Membership not dispositive; consenting to baptism tied Plaintiff to ecclesiastical decisions at issue |
| Whether minister (Miller) can be sued individually for acts related to baptism | Individual liability appropriate for torts independent of doctrine | Acts were performed pursuant to church doctrine and custom; ministerial acts are ecclesiastical | Held: Miller protected by church autonomy for acts tied to administering baptism; no civil jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871) (foundational statement that civil courts must defer to internal church tribunals on ecclesiastical questions)
- Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952) (church autonomy protects internal governance and selection of clergy from state interference)
- Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) (church autonomy applies to polity and administration)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (tests whether conduct is rooted in religious belief for First Amendment protection)
- Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002) (applies ‘‘rooted in religious belief’’ inquiry to determine ecclesiastical protection)
- Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d 766 (Okla. 1989) (discusses limits of autonomy doctrine and tort claims arising from church discipline)
- Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okla. 1992) (reaffirms broad protection for ecclesiastical decisionmaking; limits civil inquiry)
- Bladen v. First Presbyterian Church of Sallisaw, 857 P.2d 789 (Okla. 1993) (First Amendment may shield church from tort liability when act occurs within ecclesiastical jurisdiction)