Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church

1969 United States Supreme Court case
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church
Argued December 9–10, 1968
Decided January 27, 1969
Full case namePresbyterian Church in the United States, et al. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, et al.
Citations393 U.S. 440 (more)
89 S. Ct. 601; 21 L. Ed. 2d 658; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2702
Case history
PriorCertiorari granted, 390 U.S. 440 (1968)
Holding
The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment, bars the state from passing judgment in theological matters when judging property disputes involving religious organizations. Invalidates so-called "departure-from-doctrine" theory.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Abe Fortas · Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceHarlan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the secession of two local churches, including Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, from the parent body Presbyterian Church in the United States because, they claimed, the Church had departed from its original doctrinal tenets. The Court ruled that the state could not pass judgment concerning religious doctrine or church law.

Background

In 1966 the sessions of two congregations of the Presbyterian Church in the United States voted to secede from the parent organization. They were upset over the parent body's decisions to ordain women, to remain within the National Council of Churches, its position with regard to the Vietnam War and other social issues, its embrace of "neo-orthodox" and alleged denial of the Holy Trinity and certain Sunday School texts. Subsequently the Presbytery of Savannah appointed an Administrative Commission to resolve the dispute. When the two insurgent churches remained intransigent, the Presbytery attempted to take over the seceding churches' properties until new leadership could be found. The seceding churches then filed suit in the Superior Court of Chatham County to enjoin representatives of Presbytery from trespassing on their properties. In response, the denomination moved to dismiss that injunction and filed a cross-injunction on its own behalf claiming that the state had no authority to determine whether the general church had departed from its tenets of faith and practice. The suits were consolidated for trial.

At the trial the case was decided under the doctrine of "implied trust" and "departure from doctrine", which meant that the jury was instructed to render a verdict whether the general church had violated the trust of its members by departing fundamentally from its original tenets. The jury found for the seceding churches, as did the Supreme Court of Georgia.

External links

  • Text of Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) is available from: Findlaw  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections