The Nevada Supreme Court now allows Nevada courts to hear more cases involving internal church disputes when religious doctrine or practices do not need to be considered.
The case before the court involves a 2024 lawsuit brought by members of the Northern Nevada Sikh Society (NNSS) against the organization’s management committee.
The members allege the management committee violated NNSS bylaws while transferring a Sikh temple into a trust.
The management committee asked a Nevada district court to dismiss the lawsuit under the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.” The court declined, citing a “neutral principles of law” exception to that doctrine.
The management committee argued the exception applies only to property disputes and asked the Nevada Supreme Court to intervene.
The state supreme court disagreed with the committee, opting instead to expand the scope of the exception.
The decision illustrates ongoing tensions among the courts when it comes to intervening in litigation triggered by internal church conflicts.
This issue especially matters to pastors and church leaders because it affects the potential legal liability their churches face, as well as the steps they can take to limit that liability.
First Amendment protections
The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the related neutral principles of law exception both developed from a series of US Supreme Court decisions addressing when courts can intervene in internal church disagreements.
The doctrine, also known as the church autonomy doctrine, formed through an 1872 US Supreme Court case decided on First Amendment grounds. It prohibited courts from deciding cases that require examining religious doctrine, polity, discipline, administration, or practices. It also noted property or contract disputes may go before civil courts if no religious beliefs and practices are implicated and an ecclesiastical body has no authority to determine the issue.
Subsequent decisions further shaped the doctrine.
In 1969, the Supreme Court reaffirmed it but noted room for “marginal civil court review” when disputes involving property or fraud arise. Then, in 1979, the Court formalized the neutral principles of law exception, permitting limited review by civil courts in church property disputes or fraud claims when they do not have to evaluate ecclesiastical or doctrinal issues or religious texts to decide them (Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979)).
Since then, state courts and lower federal courts have differed in applying the doctrine and the exception.
Upset members
In Nevada, members allege the NNSS committee violated corporate bylaws by improperly creating subcommittees, maintaining inadequate membership records, blocking records access, and transferring the temple into a trust.
The Nevada Supreme Court agreed to intervene because “our case law does not present a clear answer as to whether courts may utilize the neutral-principles exception in cases beyond those concerning church property ownership disputes.”
It noted the split among state and federal courts with the doctrine and the exception. Courts in some states have used the neutral-principles exception more broadly, allowing lawsuits related to governance decisions and age discrimination claims.
Review how other courts nationwide have decided cases involving the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, as well as examples when courts chose not to intervene in membership disputes.
A case in Kentucky, for instance, recognized the neutral principles exception permitted a contract dispute brought against a seminary. Similarly, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit used the exception to allow cases ranging from alleged fraud to governance to trademark ownership.
Meanwhile, courts elsewhere have limited the exception, barring lawsuits tied to membership status, defamation, retirement benefits, and invasion of privacy. The Nevada Supreme Court noted one Illinois court’s strong caution against expanding the exception beyond property conflicts.
But the Nevada Supreme Court ultimately found the Ninth Circuit’s approach most persuasive, adding:
(T)he relevant inquiry for courts to resolve is whether the court is able to apply neutral principles of law to resolve the issues at hand without consideration of ecclesiastical or doctrinal matters . . . In other words, when neutral principles of law can resolve the underlying dispute, then the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply.
In this case, however, the Nevada Supreme Court determined the plaintiffs’ case can proceed because they “ask the court to decide—under Nevada law and the secular governing corporate documents of NNSS—whether NNSS Management acted in accordance with NNSS’s bylaws.”
Why this decision matters to churches
- The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision is binding on Nevada courts, including federal district courts deciding cases brought under Nevada’s laws. It also may prove persuasive to other state and federal courts nationwide.
- The court’s emphasis on the “secular” nature of NNSS’s bylaws demonstrates the importance of creating and updating bylaws that explicitly align with a church’s doctrine, beliefs, and practices.
- Churches that are part of larger ecclesiastical bodies with established, doctrine-based processes for resolving disputes, such as denominations and church networks, will possess a stronger defense to the neutral-principles exception when an internal dispute triggers litigation.
- The court’s decision is surprisingly vague, allowing court intervention of seemingly any “underlying dispute” so long as examinations of religious doctrine, texts, or practices do not occur. Where the line exists, and when it gets crossed, are ambiguous questions that could trigger future lawsuits.
- Common internal church conflicts often intersect with employment-related matters. Churches still receive strong protections with respect to their employment of ministers due to the US Supreme Court’s decisions recognizing the “ministerial exception,” a subset of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine (also known as the church autonomy doctrine). More potential liability exists with employment matters involving nonministers, although a recent Ninth Circuit decision suggests religious employers may possess greater protections under the church autonomy doctrine for ensuring they employ only co-religionists.
- Consultation with qualified local counsel can help determine how local courts apply the doctrine and exception beyond property or fraud disputes—and how much or little legal liability may exist for a church. The analysis must evaluate the facts and circumstances and how local courts have applied the exception.
- Leaders must remember that First Amendment protections, no matter how strong, still have limits. Churches remain subject to many other types of civil liability extending beyond internal conflicts, such as personal injury claims, as well as civil and criminal laws at the local, state, and federal levels.
Singh v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, (NV Sup. Ct., April 2, 2026)
Attorney and Senior Editorial Advisor Frank Sommerville contributed to this analysis.
