DOE v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA
2017 OK 106
| Okla. | 2017Background
- John Doe, a Syrian-born Muslim permanent resident, sought baptism at First Presbyterian Church (FPC) in Tulsa but did not seek church membership; he requested the baptism be kept private due to safety concerns.
- A church member texted Doe assuring confidentiality; Doe was baptized in a non-televised service.
- The day after baptism, FPC published notice of the baptism on the internet.
- While traveling to Syria later, Doe alleges extremists learned of his conversion from that publication, kidnapped and tortured him, and he sustained severe harm.
- Doe sued FPC and its minister for torts and breach of contract; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding the matter implicated ecclesiastical practices.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the dismissal improper because disputed factual issues central to Doe’s claims required resolution and the church-autonomy defense is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar (per the majority).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the church-autonomy (ecclesiastical abstention) doctrine | Doe: claims are tort/breach of contract based on a promise of confidentiality; resolution requires ordinary fact-finding, so court has jurisdiction | FPC: publication of baptism is tied to Presbyterian doctrine; ecclesiastical questions bar secular adjudication | Majority: dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was error; disputed factual issues convert the challenge into a merits/summary-judgment inquiry and require remand |
| Whether evidence outside the pleadings converts a § 2012(b)(1) jurisdictional motion into summary judgment | Doe: factual disputes about what was promised and consent require resolving facts, so conversion is appropriate | FPC: considering outside evidence to show jurisdictional bar is permissible without conversion when used to test subject-matter jurisdiction | Majority: where outside evidence concerns elements of the plaintiff’s claim, conversion is required; district court should have treated motion as for summary judgment |
| Whether non‑membership defeats application of church-autonomy protections | Doe: he never consented to ecclesiastical governance; protections tied to membership and consent | FPC: argues doctrinal requirements for baptism apply regardless and bar adjudication | Majority: membership (and consent to ecclesiastical governance) is central; since Doe never became a member, church-autonomy protection is weakened; factual disputes remain for the trier of fact |
| Whether the church-autonomy doctrine is jurisdictional or an affirmative defense post-Hosanna‑Tabor | Doe: implies defense should be treated on merits, allowing court to hear claims | FPC: urges the doctrine deprives courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate ecclesiastical matters | Majority: follows Hosanna‑Tabor and treats the doctrine (as applied here) as an affirmative defense that does not strip subject-matter jurisdiction; remand for factual development (dissent argues otherwise) |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (U.S. 1871) (early articulation that ecclesiastical tribunals govern internal church matters and those who join consent to that governance)
- Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1952) (First Amendment prevents secular interference in church government and doctrine)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (U.S. 2012) (ministerial exception operates as an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional bar)
- Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d 768 (Okla. 1989) (ecclesiastical protection tied to membership; defense unavailable after membership ends)
- Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okla. 1992) (church autonomy shields ecclesiastical tribunal decisions while membership continues)
- Osage Nation v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Osage County, 394 P.3d 1224 (Okla. 2017) (attachment of outside evidence to jurisdictional motions may convert the motion when disputed facts relate to substantive claims)
- Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002) (church-autonomy doctrine protects ecclesiastical discussions and can apply to nonmembers when entanglement would impair church governance)
- Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, 611 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2010) (ministerial exception may bar merits of a claim but does not necessarily deprive the court of jurisdiction)