Kenneth Shelton v. Anthonee Patterson

This Court has made plain that States may adjudicate disputes that arise within religious communities, so long as they can be resolved on “neutral principles.” Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979). But Wolf cautioned that where the resolution of a controversy even under a “neutral principles” approach requires the evaluation and interpretation of a religious matter, broadly construed, the civil courts must defer to the religious community on those issues, applying Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 710 (1976). And then, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. E.E.O.C., 565 U.S. 171, 195 n.4 (2012), this Court opined that church disputes over ministry are not per se exempt from judicial scrutiny under church autonomy principles, and that they should instead be treated as affirmative defenses, leading to further confusion in the application of this precedent in the lower courts. After nearly a quarter century of litigation, the court below—ostensibly following “neutral principles” as contemplated by Wolf—has directed that a nonmember of a religious community be installed in the highest leadership position of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, displacing its duly elected leader. The case below thus presents a matter for plenary review related to the inconsistent application of this Court’s precedent: Whether this Court should clarify Jones v. Wolf and Hosanna-Tabor v. E.E.O.C., given the doctrinal uncertainty and unpredictability reflected in inconsistent