Search a title or topic

Over 20 million podcasts, powered by 

Player FM logo
Artwork

Content provided by The Federalist Society. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by The Federalist Society or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Current Issues in Church Autonomy Doctrine: Categorical Immunity, Collateral Order Doctrine, and Neutral Principles of Law

1:14:34
 
Share
 

Manage episode 497068701 series 1782649
Content provided by The Federalist Society. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by The Federalist Society or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a Presbyterian church in Louisville, Kentucky, over the issue of slavery. The Court fashioned a principle that civil courts should not decide issues regarding faith, doctrine, and membership. Later, in Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), the Court cemented the rule of deference to ecclesiastical bodies in internal church disputes, grounding the rule in the First Amendment and applying it to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a competing rule emerged in certain circumstances in a 5-4 decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, a divided Court held that civil courts may also use “neutral principles” of law to resolve church schisms involving property disputes. Today, courts wrestle with the dilemma of applying deference or neutral principles and face challenging questions regarding the nature of the church autonomy doctrine, including whether it is jurisdictional in nature and its application in a variety of circumstances.
Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.
Featuring:
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law
L. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  continue reading

1033 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 497068701 series 1782649
Content provided by The Federalist Society. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by The Federalist Society or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.
The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a Presbyterian church in Louisville, Kentucky, over the issue of slavery. The Court fashioned a principle that civil courts should not decide issues regarding faith, doctrine, and membership. Later, in Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), the Court cemented the rule of deference to ecclesiastical bodies in internal church disputes, grounding the rule in the First Amendment and applying it to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a competing rule emerged in certain circumstances in a 5-4 decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, a divided Court held that civil courts may also use “neutral principles” of law to resolve church schisms involving property disputes. Today, courts wrestle with the dilemma of applying deference or neutral principles and face challenging questions regarding the nature of the church autonomy doctrine, including whether it is jurisdictional in nature and its application in a variety of circumstances.
Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.
Featuring:
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law
L. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
  continue reading

1033 episodes

Tüm bölümler

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Copyright 2025 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Copyright
Listen to this show while you explore
Play