I was right in concept but picked the wrong case.  My money was on Episcopal Diocese of Rochester v. Harnish for the first case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify issues of church property and the trust clause.  That was the case earlier decided by a state supreme court (New York) as opposed to the case of St. James Episcopal Church, part of the California Episcopal Church Cases.  The California Supreme Court sent that back down to the trial court to have it heard and decided based on the concept of “neutral principles.”

Well, St. James Church announced yesterday that it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the California Court decision.  As the press release on the church web site says:

St. James Anglican Church, at the centerpiece of a nationally
publicized church property dispute with the Episcopal Church, announced
today that it will file a petition for writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court to resolve an important issue of religious
freedom: Does the United States Constitution, which both prohibits the
establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion,
allow certain religious denominations to disregard the normal rules of
property ownership that apply to everyone else?

To put the legal question another way – “Can a hierarchical church impose a property trust clause on a particular church without their explicit consent” as the California Supreme Court decided.  Or to put it another way, when the trust clause was added to the Episcopal Canons did the individual churches implicitly agree and accept them.  Hierarchical churches are the one case where California law allows a trust to be imposed on a corporation.  The particular church wants a decision if that is constitutional.  (Yes, I am highly simplifying the legal issue here while hopefully still conveying the essence of the question.)

I must admit that as I look over these cases again I have to think “be careful what you ask for.”  The majority California decision was argued that it was based upon neutral principles of law while basically siding with the hierarchical church in this case.  Justice Kennard’s separate decision basically called the rest of the court on this and said “if you are going to side with the hierarchical church in this way at least be honest and call it principle of government.”  And J. Kennard is very direct about it:

In my view, Corporations Code section 9142 reflects the principle of government approach. That statute allows a hierarchical church, such as the Episcopal Church here, through its bylaws to unilaterally impose a trust on the property of a local member parish. The statute does not state a neutral principle of law; rather, it creates a special principle applicable solely to religious corporations.

I’m not sure I would wager money that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this approach, but I could see them concurring with this overall case but using it to strengthen the principle of government theory.  My thoughts on it and I’ve been wrong before.

So we are back to watching this move through the judicial process.  We will have to see if the court accepts the case, when arguments are heard and when a decision is handed down.  Clearly this process will take a year if not more.  But the decision will affect court cases in multiple denominations with many different individual cases now in the courts.