U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck today remanded the case to the South Carolina Circuit Court. In informing the parties, Judge Houck said,
“If this Court determined that a case may be removed based on federal question jurisdiction whenever a defendant attributed a federal constitutional issue not alleged or advanced in a well-pleaded complaint, federal question jurisdiction could potentially be expanded to all cases containing tacit First Amendment issues.”
Diocesan officials expressed their gratitude for the decision.
YAY! Thanks be to God! An answer to the prayers of many here in the Diocese of South Carolina.
Very good. Round 1 to DSC.
As a lawyer, I thought TEC’s removal to federal court tactic bordered on the frivolous. Don’t know whether the Diocese will seek award of attorney’s fees. They should.
who wrote this? Great synopsis:
The Diocese has consistently disagreed with TEC’s embrace of what most members of the global Anglican Communion believe to be a radical fringe scriptural interpretation that makes following Christ’s teachings optional for salvation
Jim the Puritan,
Whenever I have asked attorneys about TEC’s removal of the case to Federal Court, I usually get an answer similar to yours. Yet, TEC has tried this tactic twice (to my knowledge). If this tactic did not work in the Ft. Worth litigation, why they did try it again in SC?? Desperation?
Chris, I know the author of the press release and will pass along your comments. She will be pleased!
Thanks be to God.
But let us continue to pray over this. We know TEC is tenacious, and will not give up until a) they win; b) every last dime of pension money or Trinity endowment is spent on legal fees; or c) they have exhausted every possible appeal, up to and including the US Supreme Court, whichever comes first. Certainly, no court case anywhere will end until the PB election (if there is one) at GC 2015, and only then if the current incumbent does not choose to succeed herself.
The feeling of relief is delicious. On further rumination, the judge’s observation was astute: if every conflict with First Amendment implications automatically qualified as a federal case, the federal courts would be overwhelmed. I see a deeper truth in that. Our God is relevant to everything, so our religion is tacitly present in every court case.
Absolutely TJ! Yes, continued prayer is needed not only for our litigation here in SC but for all litigation that TEC has doled out over the past years especially litigation between dioceses and TEC!
Sam, We found out last night and the relief was immediate and wonderful as if a huge boulder has been shifted. Agreed, there is a deeper truth here and Judge Houck did make a very astute observation about that. Even better was his reasoning that did not make the case for federal jurisdiction in this matter. Hard to believe that TECinSC lawyers really wanted this to go forward. Surely, they knew this was wrong but went ahead anyway on the slim hope that Judge Houck would take the case.
Thanks be to God for wise judges! Hopefully the case will do well in the state court.
TEC’s tactics are consistent and appear to me to be legal “bullying”. They file as many briefs as possible to try to overwhelm the opposition. I believe the Diocese should seek redress from the federal court to punish TEC for their tactics. TEC will continue their outrageous behavior unless they are punished for it.
WestJ,
As I understand it, Circuit Court Judge D. Goodstein could impose sanctions/fines on TEC-SC for ignoring the injunction that is still in place against them. It was a pretty gusty move to file a lawsuit to ask federal courts to do what Judge Goodstin wrote they(TEC) could NOT do because of the injunction. Whether she imposes any fines, that is up to her. Don’t know if the diocese could ask Federal courts for redress or not. Perhaps TEC-SC should be liable for wasting the time of Judge Houck and federal courts??
Excellent victory. Although the removal papers may have been speculative at best, many federal judges are reluctant to remand the case to state court, and may permit the jurisdictional issues to drag over into pretrial discovery and continue to linger. Federal judges are supposed to follow state law on state-law issues, but there is little effective restraint, and DSC didn’t need 3 federal appellate judges (from WV, MD, Va, etc.), sitting in Richmond, trying to decide if South Carolina law had been effectively applied. So it is all for the best to get the case out of federal court; also, remand orders can only be appealed on extraordinary writs (let’s see if TEC tries that!), so this should go directly back to state court. Congrats all the way round.
SC blu cat lady and WestJ:
I think the legal tactics of TEC are exactly as 9. WestJ describes: they will use any and every means they can think of to win by legal decision or by their opponents running out of steam (or money).
I can think of two analogies: (1) When the North faced off with the South in That Most Recent Unpleasantness (as I learned to call it when I lived in Charlottesville, VA), the perspective of the North was: “We will win this war because we have more bullets than you have people.” (2) When Rocky faced off in the ring with the Russian fighter Drago in Rocky IV, Drago says, “I must break you!” and slams his boxing-gloved fists onto Rocky’s.
The legal strategy of TEC appears to be: we don’t simply want to win: we want to embarrass and destroy you. Enter into a lawsuit with TEC and you can count on the fact that your Christian courage and virtues will be tested!
I recall a TEC lawyer saying “We want it all….NOW.” That’s their aim, and they will do everything under the sun to get there. They don’t care what it costs them; it’s “win at any price.” Total dictatorship means total power, which further means total control, or a sort of ecclesiastical Big Brother mentality, and that’s what I see coming from 815 2nd Avenue. And according to TEC canon law, Schori can’t succeed herself, but we can be dead certain that she’ll try to hand-pick her successor.
Unity is maintained only by the threat of litigation. There is nothing left.
Encouraging result. Steady as she goes.
In the day of my trouble I call upon you
for you answer me [Psalm 86:7]
Thanks be to God.
For once the TEC machine has lost a round. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. Nice to be able to feel sorry for them instead of being angry at them.
Agreed, Sam. For once (and the second time in SC) TEC has lost. Definitely time for rejoicing but it ain’t over until it is over so keep praying for a just outcome. No longer feel angry just pity towards TEC.
Many congratulations to the Diocese and its parishes and people, and I hope you are all offering special prayers of thanksgiving for the very wise advice of your legal counsel to file the case in state court rather than waiting for the inevitable TEC federal suit. Dick Mitchell, the Anglican Curmudgeon also thinks this remand order will not be subject to appeal, so TEC must now slug it out in state court (where it belongs).
Good.
Katherine,
Yes we are indeed very thankful for our legal team composed of several attorneys representing the 35 parishes. I am not sure who decided to sue in state court but yes it was great reasoning. Considering that newspaper ads were done on behalf of the TEc remnant but using the name, Diocese of South Carolina, it was obvious to many here that something needed to be done and fortunately it was. Thanks be to God!
#5 SC blu cat lady–I’ve been away from the computer for a couple of days and have not had the chance to read this judge’s opinion, but my feeling was there were no valid federal claims–TEC was just forum shopping, hoping they could get the federal court to agree there was a federal claim and then yank the case from the State courts. What TEC really wants is that once the federal court gets jurisdiction, it can theoretically decide both the federal and state law claims.
As I understand it, TEC’s position has already been rejected in other prior litigation in the South Carolina courts, so, knowing they are likely going to lose in State court, they want to try get a second shot by arguing that the federal court should somehow decide the state law issues differently (or come up with a federal law decision that would somehow trump the State laws). Again, I haven’t read the opinion, but my guess is the federal judge was reading between the lines, saw what the real strategy was, and didn’t take the bait.
My guess is that they will now go back to state court and try to maneuver the State court judge into a position where TEC can then argue that the judge is violating their federal rights, and then try to run back to federal court. I don’t think that strategy will be too well received by the state court judge, however. What we call “doctrines of abstention” would also make it somewhat unlikely they can take their claims back to federal court, at least until the State law judicial process is exhausted and there has been a final decision (that is likely to be in the South Carolina Supreme Court if this plays out all the way). And then, usually, their only recourse would be a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, they can’t “collaterally attack” the State courts by simply filing a new suit in the lower federal court.
I condition the following by saying I have not followed the case that carefully, so this was mainly my gut read. In my part of the country, the federal courts are loathe to take cases where they don’t have to, so here you have to have a pretty good argument to remove a case to federal court. It’s not granted unless you have a clear right to removal and I didn’t see it here. But I obviously defer to those who are more familiar with the litigation and the federal and state legal process in South Carolina.
I wonder if the case will go all the way to the SC Supreme Court since the Court has already ruled in favor of All Saints, Waccamaw in the past.
Hi Jim the Puritan,
Thanks. When you get a chance, you should read Judge Houck’s decision. You would enjoy reading it. According to Mr. Haley, it is very well written and a model judicial decision. Even non attorneys like myself can read it and understand Judge Houck’s reasoning process. Your gut reaction/ guesses were spot on. Judge Houck even mentions and cites other cases where this “send it to federal court” argument did not work and why. Judge Houck mentioned the balance between Federal-State courts and makes it clear that the Federal Courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction”.
Katherine,
Here is [url=http://www.episcopalchurchsc.org/legal-news.html]the latest from TEC-SC[/url] where it is mentioned that Judge Houck’s decision can not be appealed. So the litigation goes back to SC Circuit court and Judge Goodstein. 🙂
I may be mistaken, but I believe I detected a little uncertainty in TEC-SC’s lawyer when he said they were certain of their case going forward to Federal court. Are they dead certain that this will happen, or are they attempting to put a positive spin on the judge’s remand order?
TEO’s biggest fear is to have a court actually hash out their true hierarchy, which is easy enough for conservatives to see and revisionists to parrot a lie about. Revisionists know they are only hierarchial to the diocese level, and they know that if the question reaches the level of being asked of a court, their gig is up. The evidence is overwhelming and TEo is scared to death of it.
TEC-SC (filed in the name of Bishop vonRosenberg) still has a federal suit against Bishop Lawrence. That may be what the lawyer was so confident about. However, that strategy was tried in Fort Worth and went down to failure ….. so why the confidence?…… I could not guess.
As I understand it, in Ft. Worth, once the main lawsuit was kicked back to the state court, the federal trademark lawsuit was put on indefinite hold pending resolution of the state court case. The same will surely happen here.
People happy about this case so far might want to say a prayer for Ft. Worth, where a decision is slated to be announced soon.
My prayers go out to Bishop Iker and all of his people.