230 Conn.App. 793
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- The Foundation for the Advancement of Catholic Schools, Inc. (FACS), a Connecticut nonstock corporation, and five of its board members sued the Archbishop of Hartford and other defendants over the procedure for appointing trustees to FACS’s board.
- FACS’s bylaws were amended in 2005 to create a Governance Committee responsible for nominating trustee candidates, with the Archbishop retaining appointment authority.
- A dispute arose after the Archbishop made board appointments not exclusively from the Governance Committee’s nominee list, prompting the action.
- The trial court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that judicial intervention would violate the First Amendment by excessively entangling the court with religious matters.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the issue is purely one of corporate governance, addressable via neutral legal principles without religious entanglement.
- The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding the case could be resolved using neutral principles of law and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiffs’ standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First Amendment prohibits court from hearing FACS bylaw dispute | Neutral principles of law can be applied to resolve a secular appointment process dispute | Dispute is intertwined with religious doctrine; court lacks jurisdiction | No First Amendment barrier; court can apply neutral principles of law for corporate governance |
| Whether FACS is a religious organization barring court jurisdiction | FACS is not a religious organization, but even if it is, bylaws are secular | FACS is religious; appointment process is a matter of church governance | Even if FACS is religious, the secular, bylaw-based process is justiciable |
| Whether adjudication would entangle the court in religious doctrine or polity | Relief sought is about bylaw interpretation, not religious doctrine | Adjudication would intrude upon Archbishop's religious authority | No religious entanglement shown; issue is secular and suitable for court adjudication |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing | (Plaintiffs assert standing) | Plaintiffs lack standing for several reasons (authority, demand, aggrievement) | Not addressed; remanded for evidentiary hearing on standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979) (establishes the neutral principles of law approach in church property and governance disputes)
- Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States & Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) (civil courts may not resolve purely ecclesiastical questions)
- Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) (introduces neutral principles approach for church property disputes)
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871) (establishes deference to church tribunals on doctrinal and ecclesiastical matters)
- Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, 120 Conn. App. 666 (2010) (Connecticut precedent on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and standing)
- Clough v. Wilson, 170 Conn. 548 (1976) (neutral principles for nonstock religious corporations)