Texas Supreme Court Says If You Are Injured By A Church, You Are Screwed
By Vince Leibowitz on Jun 27, 2008 in Notable Court Decisions ![[Post to Twitter]](/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Tweet This Post 
In one of the worst opinions ever issued by the Texas Supreme Court, the Court today held that, if you are injured by a church, you are screwed.
The decision will have profound implications for every type of tort case that could be brought against a church, although the six justices in the majority seem to think it only involves cases where the injury was the result of some doctrinal action of the church–in this instance, an exorcism.
The case is Pleasant Glade Assembly of God, et al v. Schubert. The Star-Telegram has an excellent summation:
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God’s efforts to cast out demons from the Laura Schubert presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in church doctrine.
In a 1996 lawsuit against the church, Schubert described a wild night involving the casting out of demons from the church and two separate attempts to exorcise demons from her.
The 2002 trial of the suit never touched on the religious aspects of the case, and a Tarrant County jury found the church and its members liable for abusing and falsely imprisoning Schubert, who was 17 at the time. The jury awarded Schubert $300,000 for mental anguish, but the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth shaved $122,000 from the verdict for loss of future income.
But the church raised the question of whether the Fort Worth appeals court erred when it said Pleasant Glades’ First Amendment rights regarding freedom of religion do not prevent the church from being held liable for mental distress triggered by a “hyper-spiritualistic environment.”
A majority of the court agreed, with Justice David Medina writing that while Schubert’s secular injury claims might “theoretically be tried without mentioning religion, the imposition of tort liability for engaging in religious activity to which the church members adhere would have an unconstitutional ‘chilling effect’ by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs.”
To give you an idea of just how bad this opinion is, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, by no means a “moderate Republican” led the three lone dissenters. The opening paragraph of the Jefferson Dissent (in which two other justices joined in parts only) is very telling:
After today, a tortfeasor need merely allege a religious motive to deprive a Texas court of jurisdiction to compensate his fellow congregant for emotional damages. This sweeping immunity is inconsistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the protections our Constitution affords religious conduct. The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion’s name. Because the Court’s holding precludes recovery of emotional damages—even for assault and other serious torts—where the defendant alleges that the underlying assault was religious in nature, I respectfully dissent. [Emphasis added]
In his dissent, Justice Green echoes a similar statement:
Because the fundamental principles of Texas common law do not conflict with the Free Exercise Clause, courts can and should decide cases like this according to neutral principles of tort law.
Tort law is the great equalizer, and justice is supposed to be blind.
Today, however, the Texas Supreme Court took off her blindfold, replaced her scales with a cross and her sword with a Bible.
This is an excellent reason that we need people like Justice Linda Yanez, Sam Houston, and Jim Jordan and on the Texas Supreme Court. Justice Yanez is a jurist of unquestionable credentials who would bring balance to the right-wing monstrosity that is the Texas Supreme Court. Sam Houston is an appellate attorney who understands the value of our jury and court system–and respects the right for injured parties to seek justice in the courtroom. Jim Jordan is a jurist who understands that all laws should be applied as enacted, pursuant to the protective umbrella of the constitution.
You can read the opinion, delivered by Medina with Hecht, O’Neill, Wainwright, Brister, and Willet joining in concurrence here. The opinion is so poorly crafted it actually refers to the original plaintiff by her first name, which is not a common practice in judicial opinions:
Laura asserted, however, that the events at the church caused her both physical and emotional injury, and the church concedes that the First Amendment does not protect it from Laura’s claim of physical injury.
The Jefferson Dissent (joined in parts by Green and Johnson) is here.
The Green dissent is here. The Johnson dissent is here.
Tweet This Post ![[Post to Ping.fm]](/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-ping.png){kind=icon}
Ping This Post
[...] Leibowitz at Capitol Annex takes a look at the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion declaring, essentially, that if you are injured by a chur…, which stems from the case of–get this–an exorcism gone horribly [...]
[...] Leibowitz at Capitol Annex takes a look at the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion declaring, essentially, that if you are injured by a chur…, which stems from the case of–get this–an exorcism gone horribly [...]
[...] Leibowitz at Capitol Annex takes a look at the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion declaring, essentially, that if you are injured by a chur…, which stems from the case of–get this–an exorcism gone horribly [...]