Over the last several decades, tension has unfortunately arisen between the leadership of mainline Protestant denominations and individual congregations, frequently over differences grounded in broader social issues. These disputes often find their way into the judicial system, and then there is an important threshold question to be answered: would resolving the dispute involve a state’s civil courts in deciding matters of religious doctrine? If it would, then there is “ecclesiastical entanglement,” and the civil court therefore lacks jurisdiction.

This principle of law, usually referred to as the “ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine,” helps protect the free exercise of religion. It also effectuates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by preventing the government (through its judges and juries) from interfering with and dictating matters of religion to members of a church or other religious entity.  

But, the ecclesiastic entanglement doctrine is not a talismanic invocation that automatically deprives a civil court of jurisdiction over any dispute between a congregation and denominational leaders. When the case can be resolved through reliance on “neutral principles” of secular law that apply to all organizations, regardless of their religious character, it is not considered an ecclesiastical dispute over which a civil court lacks the power to rule. When, however, the civil court would have to decide spiritual questions or issues of religious doctrine, then impermissible ecclesiastical entanglement is present, and the civil court does not have jurisdiction over the matter due to its lack of constitutional competence over religious issues.

Needless to say, these are often difficult cases, and they require careful analysis of the specific allegations at issue and the constitutional dangers that might be attendant to the exercise of civil court jurisdiction. A recent decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals illustrates the meticulous approach required to ensure the protection of religious liberty and church independence without unduly failing to exercise the civil jurisdiction vested in our state’s courts.

In Fifth Avenue United Methodist Church of Wilmington v. North Carolina Conference, Southeastern Jurisdiction, of the United Methodist Church, Inc., the Court of Appeals considered a dispute between Wilmington’s historic Fifth Avenue UMC Church, founded in 1847, and the United Methodist Church’s denominational authorities. Fifth Avenue associated with the UMC in 1968. In 2023, it sought to dissociate from the denomination in accordance with procedures established by the UMC. While Fifth Avenue was pursuing the formally established UMC pathway for its withdrawal, UMC leadership allegedly seized the local church’s property and closed the church. Fifth Avenue filed suit challenging the legality of these actions.

The trial court dismissed the case. In a majority opinion written by Judge Michael Stading, however, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there would be no violation of the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine from the state courts hearing the matter. In so doing, the appellate court closely scrutinized each of the legal causes of action asserted by the plaintiff, Fifth Avenue, and what a civil court would need to consider in deciding the case.

For example, Fifth Avenue asserted a claim to quiet title and obtain judicial modification of a trust. Adhering to prior decisions of North Carolina courts, the majority determined that resolution of these counts would turn on “separate and distinct legal principles outside the interpretation of the UMC’s religious doctrine.” Or, in other words, these claims would be decided based on the same principles of law that would apply to any organization, regardless of its secular or religious character. The majority held similarly as to Fifth Avenue’s claims of breach of contract, fraud, and constructive fraud.   

Because these types of denominational disputes are likely to continue, courts will be faced with the difficult task of navigating between exercising their rightful jurisdiction and avoiding interference with matters of church doctrine. Despite a dissent from one of the judges on the panel in the Fifth Avenue case, the opinion’s approach is an excellent example of the careful, fact-sensitive approach that the consideration of the ecclesiastic entanglement question requires for courts to properly consider each such case on its individual merits.