St. James Anglican Church, which is at the center of a nationally publicized church property dispute with The Episcopal Church, today will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. St. James is asking the Court to overturn a prior decision of the California Supreme Court, which conferred a special power on certain religious denominations to take property they do not own simply by passing an internal “rule.” The petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether, under the U.S. Constitution, certain religious denominations can disregard the normal rules of property ownership that apply to everyone else.
Dr. John Eastman, a nationally recognized constitutional law scholar, has joined the legal team to pursue the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. A response from the Court regarding the St. James petition can be expected as early as October 2009. A decision could be reached as early as mid-2010.
“We will be arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law has violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution….”
Remember granting a petition for a writ of certiorari is purely discretionary. Four Justices must vote to hear the case. A decision to grant or deny certiorari has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case. If granted all it means is that at least four justices, for whatever reason, want to hear the case.
My guess is that they won’t take it. The argument is weak and there are much better issues to argue.
#2 They have taken this issue before and the Dennis canon was an attempt to get around their holding. I would not bet either way on this.
2. Brian: Such as?
I agree with No. 2. I don’t see the Supreme Court getting involved in this, at least at this point. The “ripeness” of the issue as they say in legal appellate jargon isn’t there.
Perhaps if various churches in different states could combine a joint action in Federal court, the Supreme Court might look at that. One case involving a state property issue is not generally a matter for review from the Supremes unless some Constitutional right violation has occurred. The Supreme Court is loathe to get involved in property matters on the state level unless it somehow invokes property or civil rights violations on a US Constitutional level. Issues between private parties in one state don’t invoke takings clause review.
I just don’t see enough justices wanted to get involved with this issue at this point. I could be wrong, but I just don’t see how this is a Federal issue.
The Federal issue has been discussed thoroughly on this blog in a posting of A.S. Haley. His position finds odd support in the concurring opinion of Justice Kennard. Essentially, the issue is that the CA Supremes have completely misunderstood the US Supremes’ doctrine of “neutral principles of law” and reinterpreted it into “church governance”. Oddly, the CA Supremes seemed to go out of their way to rely on USSC, which opened up an appeal that might not have been there otherwise.
The Supreme Court took two Presbyterian cases out of Savannah and ruled that unless the church had provided otherwise, title controlled. Both churches got their property and failed. This holding brought about the Dennis canon. Remember Justice Thomas attended Truro. It is still a long shot.