Maryland and Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God At Sharpsburg, Inc

• Decision Date: 19 January 1970
• Docket Number: No. 414,414
• Citation: 90 S.Ct. 499,24 L.Ed.2d 582,396 U.S. 367
• Parties: The MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA ELDERSHIP OF the CHURCHES OF GOD et al. v. The CHURCH OF GOD AT SHARPSBURG, INC., et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

396 U.S. 367

90 S.Ct. 499

24 L.Ed.2d 582

The MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA ELDERSHIP OF the CHURCHES OF GOD et al.

v The CHURCH OF GOD AT SHARPSBURG, INC., et al.

No. 414.

Jan. 19, 1970.

Alfred L. Scanlan, James H. Booser and Charles O. Fisher, for appellants.

Arthur G. Lambert, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In resolving a church property dispute between appellants, representing the General Eldership, and appellees, two secessionist congregations, the Maryland Court of Appeals relied upon provisions of state statutory law governing the holding of property by religious corporations,¹ upon language in the deeds conveying the properties in question to the local church corporations, upon the terms of the charters of the corporations, and upon provisions in the constitution of the General Eldership pertinent to the ownership and control of church property. 254 Md. 162, 254 A.2d 162 (1969).² Appellants argue primarily that the statute, as applied, deprived the General Elden- ship of property in violation of the First Amendment. Since, however, the Maryland court's resolution of the dispute involved no inquiry into religious doctrine, appellees' motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. It is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice MARSHALL join, concurring.

I join the per curiam but add these comments. We held in Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S.Ct. 601, 606, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969), that 'First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating secular interests in matters of purely eccelesiastical concern. * * * (T)he (First) Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decide church property disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.' It follows that a State may adopt any one of various approaches for settling church property disputes so long as it involves no consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.

Thus the States may adopt the approach of Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 20 L.Ed. 666 (1872), and enforce the property decisions made within a church of congregational polity 'by a majority of its members or by such other local organism as it may ahve instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government,' id., at 724 and within a church of hierarchical polity by the highest authority that has ruled on the dispute at issue,¹ unless 'express terms' in the 'instrument by which the property is held' condition the property's use or control in a specified manner.² Under Watson civil courts do not inquire whether the relevant church governing body has power under religious law to control the property in question. Such a determination, unlike the identification of the governing body, frequently necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage. To permit civil courts to probe deeply enough into the allocation of power within a church so as to decide where religious law places control over the use of church property would violate the First Amendment in much the same manner as civil determination of religious doctrine.³ Similarly, where the identity of the governing body or bodies that exercise general authority within a church is a matter of substantial controversy, civil courts are not to make the inquiry into religious law and usage that would be essential to the resolution of the controversy. In other words, the use of the Watson approach is consonant with the prohibitions of the First Amendment only if the appropriate church governing body can be determined without the resolution of doctrinal questions and without extensive inquiry into religious policy.

'(N)eutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,' Presbyterian Church, supra, 393 U.S. 440 at 449, 89 S.Ct. at 606, provide another means for resolving litigation over religious property. Under the 'formal title' doctrine, civil courts can determine ownership by studying deeds,...