Crystal Free Church Case Is Finanlly Resolved
High Court Refuses Appeal
The appeal was part of an effort by a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee to force the church to return $13,450 in donations made by a couple who later declared bankruptcy. The law allows creditors to recover gifts made in anticipation of bankruptcy if those gifts are "fraudulent transfers" designed to protect assets from creditors. But the Court let stand a lower court ruling which held that forcing the church to return the tithes and offerings would violate the religious freedom rights of the church and the donors.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit first ruled in the church’s favor in 1996, finding that the church’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) were being substantially burdened, and that the bankruptcy trustee lacked a "compelling" reason to violate those rights. But in 1997 the Supreme Court struck down RFRA as it applies to state law, and sent the case back for reconsideration.
The Circuit Court reaffirmed its original ruling, holding that RFRA is valid as applied to federal law, including federal bankruptcy law. The High Court could have used this case to clarify its stand on RFRA and federal law, but chose not to.
The Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act of 1998, which was signed into law in June, made the case moot by restricting the power of bankruptcy trustees to recover donations to charitable organizations.
The Crystal Free case was just one of the cases rejected by the Supreme Court when it opened its session. Among the more than 1,600 others:
• The Court rejected an appeal by drama teacher Peggy Boring from Charlotte, North Carolina. Boring lost her job at a Buncombe County school in 1992 after having students perform the play "Independence," whose characters included a lesbian and an unwed mother. She was fired for violating the school’s policy on controversial materials.
Boring sued, arguing that her First Amendment rights were being violated. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against her in February. The court wrote, "Plaintiff’s selection of the play ... does not present a matter of public concern and is nothing more than an ordinary employment dispute. That being so, plaintiff has no First Amendment rights derived from her selection of the play." The court added, "The school, not the teacher, has the right to fix the curriculum."
• A pro-life group in Wisconsin lost its bid to have the Court review a ruling it claims violates its free speech rights. The Court let stand rulings which threw out Wisconsin Right to Life’s lawsuit against state election officials and Attorney General James Doyle.
The lawsuit was a challenge to the state’s definition for political action committees as any group of two or more persons who disburse something of value "for political purposes." The group said the definition was overbroad and could apply to its nonpartisan educational activities. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a federal judge’s dismissal of the lawsuit, saying, "No one has threatened WRTL with sanctions or ordered it to register as a political committee, under either the Federal Election Campaign Act or its state counterpart."
• A Baptist pastor from Texas who had sex with two women for whom he was providing marriage counseling lost his appeal to the Supreme Court and must pay each woman $115,000. Shelby Baucum had argued that a federal jury violated his religious freedom by finding that he had committed malpractice as a clergyman.
Baucum lost his job at the Casa View Baptist Church in Dallas in 1991 after the two women disclosed the sexual relationship. The women, who were also church employees, lost their jobs, and sued for damages in federal court.
Baucum argued that a secular jury had no power to find him guilty of clergy malpractice, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled, "The First Amendment does not categorically insulate religious relationships from judicial scrutiny, for to do so would necessarily extend constitutional protection to the secular components of these relationships. ...To hold otherwise would impermissibly place a religious leader in a preferred position in our society."
Minnesota Family Council / Minnesota Family Institute
2855 Anthony Lane South, Minneapolis MN, 55418-3265
phone 612.789.8811, fax 612.789.8858, www.mfc.org