ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in Florida

2022However, as our supreme court has recognized, “a First Amendment violation does not occur any time a case requires a court to examine church law or policies.” Mammon, 193 So. 3d at 985 (citing Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 357 (Fla. 2002). 2 There is case law indicating that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to hierarchical religious organizations and not congregational religious organizations, as pointed out in Judge Warner’s concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion.

2022However, as our supreme court has recognized, “a First Amendment violation does not occur any time a case requires a court to examine church law or policies.” Mammon, 193 So. 3d at 985 (citing Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 357 (Fla. 2002). 2 There is case law indicating that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to hierarchical religious organizations and not congregational religious organizations, as pointed out in Judge Warner’s concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion.

2026The authorities from Watson v. Jones forward clearly respond that [members loyal to the parent church] represent [the local church] because of the structure and government of the [parent church].” (Emphasis added)); Mammon v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla. Inc., 193 So. 3d 980, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“However, unlike a medical malpractice, accounting, or construction case, the First Amendment's ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from relying upon experts to make such a determination in this case.”); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979) (“[A] State may adopt any one of vari

2022“The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is rooted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Mammon v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla. Inc., 193 So. 3d 980, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

2026The authorities from Watson v. Jones forward clearly respond that [members loyal to the parent church] represent [the local church] because of the structure and government of the [parent church].” (Emphasis added)); Mammon v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla. Inc., 193 So. 3d 980, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“However, unlike a medical malpractice, accounting, or construction case, the First Amendment's ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from relying upon experts to make such a determination in this case.”); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979) (“[A] State may adopt any one of vari

2026This is because “those who voluntarily unite themselves to a religious association do so with an implied consent to the association’s manner of governance and are bound to submit to it.” New Jerusalem Church of God, Inc. v. Sneads Cmty. Church, Inc., 147 So. 3d 25, 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Watson, 80 U.S. at 728–29).

2018Malichi v. Archdiocese of Miami, 945 So. 2d 526, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

2008Because the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, Malichi v. Archdiocese of Miami, 945 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we feel compelled to address the State's concerns.

2007Conference Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists, Inc. v. Dennis, 862 So.2d 842, 843-44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see McClure, 460 F.2d at 558-60 (confirming that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine enunciated in Watson precludes secular court review of employment decisions concerning a church and its minister).

2004Southeastern Conference Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists, Inc. v. Dennis, 862 So.2d 842, 843-44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Goodman v. Temple Shir Ami, Inc., 712 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

2026A. The first method, sometimes called the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, or the hierarchical deference approach, is (as its name suggests) deferential: “whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories . . . the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them . . . .” Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 727 (1872); see also Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 709 (“[T]he First and Fourteenth Amendments mandate that civil courts shall not disturb the decisions of the highest e

2022Consequently, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine “prevents civil courts from deciding matters that require adjudication of ‘theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them.’” Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gallagher, 249 So. 3d 657, 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 733 , 13 Wall. 679 , 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871)).

2022The parties do not address in the briefs whether the Church is a hierarchical or congregational, so we do not address the propriety of applying the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in this appeal as to that issue. 3 Accordingly, “[t]he scope of the [ecclesiastical abstention] doctrine is not unlimited.” Flynn v. Estevez, 221 So. 3d 1241, 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

2018“The doctrine has parallels to the ‘ministers exception’ with which it shared the common feature of allowing churches to exercise their religious freedoms without governmental interference into its internal affairs.” Flynn, 221 So. 3d at 1246 . 9 Determining the falsity of whether Father Gallagher was unfit to serve gets the court excessively entangled in Catholic Church doctrines and canonical law.

2026The authorities from Watson v. Jones forward clearly respond that [members loyal to the parent church] represent [the local church] because of the structure and government of the [parent church].” (Emphasis added)); Mammon v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla. Inc., 193 So. 3d 980, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“However, unlike a medical malpractice, accounting, or construction case, the First Amendment's ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from relying upon experts to make such a determination in this case.”); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979) (“[A] State may adopt any one of vari

2026A. The first method, sometimes called the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, or the hierarchical deference approach, is (as its name suggests) deferential: “whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories . . . the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them . . . .” Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 727 (1872); see also Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 709 (“[T]he First and Fourteenth Amendments mandate that civil courts shall not disturb the decisions of the highest e

2026The authorities from Watson v. Jones forward clearly respond that [members loyal to the parent church] represent [the local church] because of the structure and government of the [parent church].” (Emphasis added)); Mammon v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla. Inc., 193 So. 3d 980, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“However, unlike a medical malpractice, accounting, or construction case, the First Amendment's ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from relying upon experts to make such a determination in this case.”); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979) (“[A] State may adopt any one of vari

2026The authorities from Watson v. Jones forward clearly respond that [members loyal to the parent church] represent [the local church] because of the structure and government of the [parent church].” (Emphasis added)); Mammon v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla. Inc., 193 So. 3d 980, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“However, unlike a medical malpractice, accounting, or construction case, the First Amendment's ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from relying upon experts to make such a determination in this case.”); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979) (“[A] State may adopt any one of vari

2026The authorities from Watson v. Jones forward clearly respond that [members loyal to the parent church] represent [the local church] because of the structure and government of the [parent church].” (Emphasis added)); Mammon v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla. Inc., 193 So. 3d 980, 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“However, unlike a medical malpractice, accounting, or construction case, the First Amendment's ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes the court from relying upon experts to make such a determination in this case.”); Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979) (“[A] State may adopt any one of vari

2022Consequently, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine “prevents civil courts from deciding matters that require adjudication of ‘theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them.’” Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gallagher, 249 So. 3d 657, 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 733 , 13 Wall. 679 , 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871)).

2021Petersburg, 102 So. 2d 714, 718 (Fla. 1958), a case involving a hierarchical church: When the church is representative, republican or episcopal in government, the authorities uniformly hold that the church property whether held by an express or an implied trust 2 Although many courts have treated the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine as a question of subject matter jurisdiction, I do not think that is the proper understanding of the doctrine.

2012In applying the doctrine, the trial court noted that “[u]n-der the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, civil courts are prohibited from interfering with internal church disputes in order to avoid excessive government entanglement with religion, in accordance with the First Amendment.” (quoting State v. Young, 974 So.2d 601, 612-13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)).

2012Appellees point in their brief to a recent First District decision which found that “how the Church should govern itself’ is “an essentially religious matter.” Rosenberger v. Jamison, 72 So.3d 199, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

2007Conference Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists, Inc. v. Dennis, 862 So.2d 842, 843-44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see McClure, 460 F.2d at 558-60 (confirming that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine enunciated in Watson precludes secular court review of employment decisions concerning a church and its minister).

2004Southeastern Conference Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists, Inc. v. Dennis, 862 So.2d 842, 843-44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Goodman v. Temple Shir Ami, Inc., 712 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).