David and Goliath are at it again
Bayou Presbyterians knock at Supreme Court’s door
By Parker T. Williamson, The Layman, June 28, 2012
Defeated by a 20-member New Orleans congregation at trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels, the Presbytery of South Louisiana (PSL) is seeking U.S. Supreme Court intervention.
On May 17, bolstered by a phalanx of denominational lawyers from Louisville and New York, the presbytery went to Washington, asking the Supremes to validate its attempted confiscation of Carrollton Presbyterian Church property. There, its Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been challenged in a June 20 brief filed by Attorneys Lloyd J. Lunceford and Eugene R. Graves on behalf of the tiny congregation.
This David/Goliath contest has been many years in the making. It all started in 2007, when Carrollton decided to sell its building to a neighboring Catholic Church school that had been renting space in Carrollton’s educational building. This was to be a win/win transaction.
Carrollton would receive cash to invest in the congregation’s mission ventures, could continue worshipping in the sanctuary on Sunday, and would be freed from the expense of maintaining a large and aging building. On weekdays, the school could serve an increasing number of students who seek an alternative to New Orleans public education.
Presbytery Intervenes
Everyone cheered … except the Presbytery of South Louisiana (PSL) who intervened, claiming that a denominational trust clause gave it control over Carrollton’s property. Believing that the property which had been purchased, improved, maintained and insured exclusively by the Carrollton congregation belonged exclusively to Carrollton, the congregation pushed back. PSL responded by creating an administrative commission armed with the power to defrock Carrollton’s clergy, unseat its elected leadership and even dissolve the church.
In another New Orleans case during the same period a PSL administrative commission, having learned that leaders of the Woodland Presbyterian Church were discussing leaving the denomination, issued an order forbidding Woodland to hold a congregational meeting to discuss the matter. Reminding PSL that “USA” appears in the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s name and that all American citizens, including members of Presbyterian congregations, are guaranteed freedom of assembly by the US Constitution, Woodland obtained a temporary restraining order against PSL.
Carrollton Pushes Back
Carrollton launched a similar assault, protecting itself from a PSL takeover with a temporary restraining order from the trial court. Then, in a March 27, 2008 law suit Carrollton successfully argued that the PCUSA’s so-called trust clause is no good in Louisiana because it was imposed by the denomination without the explicit consent of the property owner (Carrollton). Further, the court warned PSL not to punish either the local church or its leaders for their stand in defending their property.
More and More Lawyers
Stung by Carrollton’s sharp stones, Goliath donned heavier armor. 441 emails were exchanged between PSL’s Louisiana attorneys, denominational headquarters, and attorneys with a New York firm known for helping gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered groups change the PCUSA’s sexual behavior ethic. When Carrollton got wind of these exchanges it obtained a court order demanding that PSL attorneys reveal them. PSL dragged its feet until it was slapped with a “contempt of court” judgment, forcing it to comply with Carrollton’s demand.
The confab resulted in a flurry of depositions, motions, accusations, and quasi legal maneuvers designed by PSL and its colleagues to overturn the trial court’s decision. According to presbytery documents, PSL spent more than $300,000 in its assaults on Carrollton. Although outnumbered and outspent, the tiny congregation defeated every challenge, determined not to kowtow before denominational bullying.
Churches Need Not Obey the Law
Traveling from Bayou to Foggy Bottom, Goliath has now launched its final legal assault. PSL is asking the US Supreme Court to rule that if a group calls itself a church, it need not abide by state property laws. No other citizen, private or corporate, may place another person’s property in trust for itself without the owner’s consent, but according to arguments filed by PSL, the First Amendment enables “hierarchical” churches to do so. Requiring such churches to obey state laws, says PSL, would violate their First Amendment rights.
Not so, says Carrollton in its opposing brief before the Supreme Court: “The Presbytery’s remarkable appeal to religious freedom asks this Court to adopt the view that only religious entities, and only certain types of religious entities, can unilaterally create trusts over property owned by a civil corporation, without owner consent, and that they may do so without regard to any legally cognizable form – heedless of well-established concepts of trust and property law or the specific requirements of state trust law.”
A Congregation’s ‘Unfettered Right’
Carrollton argues that its congregation never voted to create or approve of a trust over its property. In fact, on July 8, 1984, the congregation did what many southern Presbyterian churches did: It voted to exempt itself from any denominational control over its property by invoking the Book of Order’s “exception clause.” The effect of that action, says Carrollton, “was to negate any assertion of a trust by retaining the local congregation’s full and unfettered right to determine the ownership, use, control, and disposition of all Carrollton property free of any denominational interference.”
Property is Not a Doctrinal Matter
Carrollton’s brief urges the US Supreme Court not to grant a Writ of Certiorari to PSL because there is no conflict between the Louisiana Court of Appeal ‘s decision and neutral principles of law or well-established trust and property concepts. This is not a doctrinal matter, says Carrollton, but a property matter that should be treated as such without regard for “examination of ecclesiastical polity or doctrine,” as attested by the US Supreme Court in Jones v Wolf (1979).
PSL argues that the denomination’s trust clause is legitimate because Jones v Wolf authorized the imposition of a trust clause in denominational constitutions. But, argues Carrollton, that citation of Jones v Wolf ignores critical Supreme Court language. Jones v Wolf did suggest the creation of a trust in favor of the denomination as one method for avoiding property conflicts “provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form.” That, says Carrollton is the crux of the matter. A legally cognizable trust is one that conforms to state trust law, and Louisiana trust law requires that the settlor (property owner) give written consent to the formation of the trust. State law does not recognize as valid a trust that is unilaterally imposed without the settlor’s consent.
“It cannot be reasonably disputed,” says the Carrollton brief, “that the central point of Jones was to authorize and encourage the application of well-established, generally applicable principles of property and trust law, not grant a religious exemption from them.”
Carrollton continued: “It is nonsensical for the Presbytery to argue that Jones v. Wolf created a religious exemption from normal trust law, allowing a would-be beneficiary to declare a trust in its own favor over property owned by another, when Jones is the very case that says neutral principles of law “relies on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law …”
The ‘Free Exercise’ Skirt
PSL also complained to the high court that the lower court’s order preventing the presbytery’s administrative commission from punishing Carrollton’s clergy and lay leadership was a violation of the US Constitution’s “free exercise of religion clause.” Nothing could be further from the truth, responded Carrollton. The trial court’s ruling was “carefully crafted,” barring only punishment that the presbytery might inflict on the church or its leaders in retribution for Carrollton’s defense of its property rights.
The presbytery’s authority over Carrollton leaders relative to matters of faith, morals, and internal church governance has never been questioned, said Carrollton. “What the Presbytery cannot do, though, is then use that ecclesiastical action as a basis for upsetting the property status quo by engaging in self-help to seize control of Carrollton’s property and circumvent the civil court’s ability to address the merits of the property dispute.” In short, said Carrollton, the presbytery was prohibited from hiding an unlawful property grab under the skirts of the free exercise of religion clause.
Submitted during the final weeks of the Supreme Court’s spring term , PSL’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Carrollton’s response will be held for future consideration. In the meantime, Carrollton has already sold one parcel of its property to its Catholic neighbor and hopes to complete the remaining transaction soon.