Bixler v. Scientology: Amicus Brief Form Church Law Institute
Bixler v. Scientology: Amicus Brief Form Church Law Institute
Bixler v. Scientology: Amicus Brief Form Church Law Institute
22-60
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
LARRY L. CRAIN
COUNSEL OF RECORD
CHURCH LAW INSTITUTE
5214 MARYLAND WAY
SUITE 402
BRENTWOOD, TN 37027
(625) 376-2600
CRAIN.LARRY@GMAIL.COM
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Where a parishioner freely executes a religious
arbitration agreement with her church, does the First
Amendment prohibit enforcement of the agreement if
the parishioner leaves the faith?
Does the First Amendment restrict the terms on
which a Church may accept members into its faith?
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
IDENTITY AND INTEREST
OF AMICUS CURIAE ..............................................1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ................. 3
I. THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS’
RULING HAS A PROFOUND CHILLING EFFECT
UPON THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CHURCHES,
SYNAGOGUES AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL
BODIES TO RELY, AS AN ESSENTIAL
COMPONENT OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH
THEIR MEMBERS, ON COVENANTAL SAFEGUARDS
TO PROTECT THEIR ORGANIZATIONAL INTEGRITY
AND THE OPERATION OF THEIR MINISTRIES....... 3
CONCLUSION............................................................ 6
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
TABLE OF AUT HO RITIES
CASES
Doe v. Apostolic Assembly of Faith in Christ
Jesus, 452 F.Supp.3d 503 (W.D. Tex.
2020) .................................................................... 5
U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l
Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) ......... 4
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
U.S. Const. amend. I ............................................ i, 2, 4
JUDICIAL RULES
Sup. Ct. R. 37 .............................................................. 1
Sup. Ct. R. 37.2 ........................................................... 1
Sup. Ct. R. 37.6............................................................ 1
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Hartford Institute for Religious Research,
Fast Facts About American Religion, http:
//hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_
facts.html#sizecong (last searched August
22, 2022 ................................................................ 3
Rodney A. Smolla,
RIGHTS & LIABILITIES IN MEDIA CONTENT:
INTERNET, BROADCAST, & PRINT
(2d ed. 2011) ........................................................ 4
1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The institutional autonomy and integrity of
churches and places of worship generally depends
entirely upon their ability to govern the intra-church
relationship with their members. This core religious
value necessarily involves the freedom to determine
both the nature of this relationship, and the respective
rights of the church and its members in resolving
intra-church disputes in a manner that is consistent
with its religious teachings.
The relationship between a place of worship and
its members is uniquely an ecclesiastical concern that
is protected by the First Amendment religious clauses.
The holding of the California Court of Appeals infringes
upon this time-honored religious freedom and amounts
to a usurpation of the church’s jurisdiction to govern
itself in accordance with its religious practices, pre-
cepts and religious tenets.
3
CONCLUSION
By granting review, this Court can preserve the
religious liberty right of churches, synagogues, mosques
and other religious institutions to exercise self-govern-
ance in a manner that is consistent with their faith
and doctrine. There are few areas more central to the
exercise of ecclesiastical polity than the relationship
between a church and its members.
Respectfully submitted,
LARRY L. CRAIN
COUNSEL OF RECORD
CHURCH LAW INSTITUTE
5214 MARYLAND WAY
SUITE 402
BRENTWOOD, TN 37027
(625) 376-2600
CRAIN.LARRY@GMAIL.COM