Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

280 Ga. 702

632 S.E.2d 148

Bolden v. Barton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided July 6, 2006

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 2006-07-06

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2013

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is beyond cavil that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion includes the authority of religious bodies to make their own decisions, free from state interference, in matters of church government, faith and doctrine. Thus, civil courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into and to control the acts of the governing authority of a religious organization undertaken with reference to its internal affairs. But it is also the case that it is well-settled that a court of equity will take jurisdiction over disputes involving churches when property rights are involved and when the suit is brought on behalf of a majority of the congregation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including First Christ Holiness Church, Inc. v. Owens Temple First Christ Holiness Church, Inc.

Relies on Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church · 232 Ga. App. 253 - United Baptist Church, Inc. v. Holmes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-07-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SEARS, Chief Justice,

¶1concurring.

¶2The majority opinion correctly holds that ‘(i)t is well-settled that a court of equity will take jurisdiction over disputes involving churches when property rights are involved and when the suit is brought on behalf of a majority of the congregation.’ ”2 As the majority also properly notes, in order to exercise that jurisdiction, it was necessary for the trial court in this case to determine who qualified as a member of the church, and was thus eligible to vote on the property dispute at issue. I write separately, however, to emphasize the extremely limited nature of the courts’ authority to delve into matters of church membership.

¶3As the United States Supreme Court stated in Presbyterian Church in the U. S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice.”3 Generally, issues of church membership involve matters of religious doctrine and practice that are beyond the jurisdiction of the civil courts.4 Thus, while it is proper for courts to determine church membership for the limited purpose of determining eligibility to vote on a litigated property dispute, it is plainly improper for courts to resolve disputes over church membership in general.

¶4 Majority opinion, pp. 703-704.

¶5393 U. S. 440, 449 (89 SC 601, 21 LE2d 658) (1969).

¶6 See, e.g., United Baptist Church v. Holmes, 232 Ga. App. 253 (500 SE2d 653) (1998) (courts will not decide issues regarding expulsion of church member).

/280/ga/702 · .json · Public domain