DOE v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA
2017 OK 15
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (John Doe) converted from Islam and requested baptism at First Presbyterian Church (FPC) in Tulsa on Dec. 30, 2012; the baptism was performed publicly by Pastor James D. Miller but Doe never became a church member.
- Church custom and the Presbyterian Book of Order treat baptism as a public sacrament, to be recorded in parish registers and announced in weekly bulletins (which the church posts online).
- The bulletin announcing Doe’s baptism was published (including on the church website). Shortly after returning to Syria, Doe alleges extremists learned of his conversion via the internet announcement, kidnapped and tortured him, and he suffered severe injuries and consequences.
- Doe sued FPC and Miller for breach of contract, negligence, and outrage, alleging promises of confidentiality were breached by publishing his baptism.
- Trial court initially denied a motion to dismiss under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6) but later granted dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the church autonomy (ecclesiastical) doctrine.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding publication of the baptism was rooted in ecclesiastical rule/custom and thus beyond secular court jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the church autonomy doctrine bars civil jurisdiction over claims arising from publication of the baptism | Publication is secular conduct (not protected belief) and thus falls outside First Amendment ecclesiastical immunity; confidentiality promises create contract/tort claims | Baptism (including its public announcement/recording) is doctrinally required and customary; publication is an ecclesiastical act rooted in religious belief and governance | Held: Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under the church autonomy doctrine because publication is tied to sacramental doctrine and church practice |
| Whether Doe’s non‑membership prevents application of ecclesiastical jurisdiction | Doe never consented to church jurisdiction; he was not a member so claims should be adjudicable | Even non‑members who voluntarily submit to sacramental acts (here, requested baptism) are subject to ecclesiastical cognizance for matters tied to that sacrament | Held: Non‑membership did not remove the dispute from ecclesiastical cognizance because Doe requested the sacrament and claims are inseparable from baptismal practice |
| Whether the conduct exception (torts unrelated to doctrine) applies | Publication is a secular act causing foreseeable harm and fits within tort exceptions (e.g., property/maintenance example in Bladen) | Publication here is doctrinally grounded (Book of Order and long‑standing custom) and not a separable secular act | Held: Conduct is not separable; doctrinal entanglement defeats the tort/’conduct’ exception in this case |
| Whether Miller can be sued personally for acts in performing the sacrament | Individual liability is available for torts regardless of church immunity | Acts performed as part of ecclesiastical sacrament are within protected ecclesiastical decisionmaking; adjudication would interfere with religious governance | Held: Claims against Miller tied to performing the sacrament are within ecclesiastical cognizance and barred for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871) (origin and framework for judicial noninterference in ecclesiastical decisions).
- Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952) (federal protection for church self‑government and selection of clergy).
- Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) (church autonomy applies to polity and administration).
- Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002) (threshold inquiry whether misconduct is rooted in religious belief; protected internal governance).
- Guinn v. Church of Christ Collinsville, 775 P.2d 766 (Okla. 1989) (limits on immunity where tort claims are not doctrinally entangled; test for public‑safety exception).
- Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okla. 1992) (reaffirmed broad protection for ecclesiastical decisionmaking and limited judicial interference).
- Bladen v. First Presbyterian Church of Sallisaw, 857 P.2d 789 (Okla. 1993) (First Amendment may shield churches from tort liability when acts occur within ecclesiastical jurisdiction; nonreligious acts remain actionable).