Scientology asks SCOTUS to give the church freedom to handle rape cases in religious arbitration

[essentialsaltes]

<see update in #20. I gather the church lost, because the criminal trial is moving forward>

Church of Scientology Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Force Danny Masterson Rape Accusers into Binding ‘Religious Arbitration’

The Church of Scientology is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case that questions whether religious groups can force their followers — and even their ex-followers — to submit to internal arbitration proceedings to settle disputes.

An intermediate California appellate court ruled on Jan. 19, 2022 that the respondents enjoyed a First Amendment right to leave the Church of Scientology and that their mandatory arbitration agreement with the church was terminated along with the respondents’ departure from the faith.

At times co-opting language from the Court of Appeal opinion, the church asserts in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that its followers consented to an “irrevocable agreement” to “submit disputes to Scientology arbitration” — which is just “one of the prices of joining [the Scientology] religion.”

Contracts are contracts, even when a church is a party. It should go without saying that contracts with churches are entitled to the same protection under the law as contracts with secular entities. The California Court of Appeal disagrees. It held that a voluntary party to an otherwise enforceable contract with a church may annul that contract by asserting a First Amendment right to “leave the faith” and “extricate” themselves from the church. While secular entities can enforce contracts over the objections of a party that no longer wishes to be bound, churches now cannot, as long as a party asserts a change of faith.

 

[Paulos23]

In the case of rape, the victims have the right to go to secular court if they feel they will be abused by their religions process. And with Scientology's history, I wouldn't trust them to handle it fairly.

My understanding of internal arbitration is that if the local law is broken, and one side decides not to go to arbitration, the law applies. If the Supreme Court over turns that, I am sure there will be an inquisitor from Rome who would want to talk to me.

 

[Der Alte]

I don't think that is in the court purview.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Scientology is being fairly transparent about their motives and guilt here aren't they?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Scientology is being fairly transparent about their motives and guilt here aren't they?

Motives, yes. I mean who wouldn't want to have their own pet 'courts' to try cases in? That's why so many employers and other entities have arbitration clauses. (I expect it's also less expensive and more timely and hush-hush.)

I don't know that it says anything about their guilt or the individual members' guilt. They have a preferred venue for such things, and they want what they prefer.

 

[JSRG]

Church of Scientology Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Force Danny Masterson Rape Accusers into Binding ‘Religious Arbitration’

The Church of Scientology is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case that questions whether religious groups can force their followers — and even their ex-followers — to submit to internal arbitration proceedings to settle disputes.

An intermediate California appellate court ruled on Jan. 19, 2022 that the respondents enjoyed a First Amendment right to leave the Church of Scientology and that their mandatory arbitration agreement with the church was terminated along with the respondents’ departure from the faith.

At times co-opting language from the Court of Appeal opinion, the church asserts in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that its followers consented to an “irrevocable agreement” to “submit disputes to Scientology arbitration” — which is just “one of the prices of joining [the Scientology] religion.”

Contracts are contracts, even when a church is a party. It should go without saying that contracts with churches are entitled to the same protection under the law as contracts with secular entities. The California Court of Appeal disagrees. It held that a voluntary party to an otherwise enforceable contract with a church may annul that contract by asserting a First Amendment right to “leave the faith” and “extricate” themselves from the church. While secular entities can enforce contracts over the objections of a party that no longer wishes to be bound, churches now cannot, as long as a party asserts a change of faith.

Unfortunately, the excerpt of the article you post doesn't represent it that well--you take multiple separate paragraphs from the article and just sort of put them together. Your paragraph is preceded in the article with the statement "The church elsewhere described the dispute for the Court in these terms:" but without that it makes it look like it's part of the article's commentary.

Anyway, I'll admit I don't know the law on this well. If, as is apparently being asserted, the court ruled that agreements to resolution by arbitration with a religious group aren't enforceable if one of the signers leaves the group, but this doesn't apply to those who make an agreement to resolution by arbitration with a non-religious group, it does seem rather questionable, however low an opinion I may have of the Church of Scientology (or, for that matter, agreements to resolution by arbitration).

However, the article notes that what the court asserted was that the things the people were accusing the Church of Scientology of doing (which to be clear wasn't the rape, but rather how they handled the accusations) were done after they left the religion. That would seem to be an important distinction that gives them much more latitude in their complaints.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Motives, yes. I mean who wouldn't want to have their own pet 'courts' to try cases in? That's why so many employers and other entities have arbitration clauses. (I expect it's also less expensive and more timely and hush-hush.)

I don't know that it says anything about their guilt or the individual members' guilt. They have a preferred venue for such things, and they want what they prefer.

Correct enough, evidence is required to establish guiilt. Circumstantial evidence just "Looks guilty."

 

[Pommer]

Correct enough, evidence is required to establish guiilt. Circumstantial evidence just "Looks guilty."

For a criminal conviction?
In the USA?
No, if a prosecutor can convince twelve of your peers that you “done it”, that’s really all that is needed. (Oh, their “theory” of what happened has to sorta make sense and evidence certainly helps, but there are people in prisons NOW based on an “eye-witness testimony” and a plausible prosecutorial narrative).

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I was pretty sure that arbitration is only applicable for civil disputes. Once you cross over into the criminal it should no longer apply. This is pretty much the same situation with Catholics and confession. If a parishioner admits to criminal acts during confession it should be the priests obligation to report that to the proper, non-church affiliated authorities.

 

[durangodawood]

...At times co-opting language from the Court of Appeal opinion, the church asserts in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that its followers consented to an “irrevocable agreement” to “submit disputes to Scientology arbitration”...

Extortionist scam or religion? It can be a fine line sometimes.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it depends on the nature of the contract.

If, for example, you're a builder and you sign a contract to build a whatsit at an agreed price, that contract should stand whether it's with a church or any other party.

But if the contract is only about religious matters - an agreement to follow particular practices, or engage in particular arbitration processes, or whatever as a part of observing that faith - then that contract shouldn't be enforceable by secular law.*

*There may be exceptions, particularly for people who incur legal responsibility in taking up particular roles. But I am speaking in general.

 

[durangodawood]

...But if the contract is only about religious matters - an agreement to follow particular practices, or engage in particular arbitration processes, or whatever as a part of observing that faith - then that contract shouldn't be enforceable by secular law.*....

Then why should those matter ever be formalized in a contract?

 

[Paidiske]

Then why should those matter ever be formalized in a contract?

We've always had particular commitments to our communities. I didn't sign a contract but I've made a bunch of vows along the way. If I wake up one day and decide I'm not a Christian any more, should the church be able to take me to court to try to enforce my priestly vows?

 

[durangodawood]

We've always had particular commitments to our communities. I didn't sign a contract but I've made a bunch of vows along the way. If I wake up one day and decide I'm not a Christian any more, should the church be able to take me to court to try to enforce my priestly vows?

I dont think the legal system ever meddles in vows - nor should it. But a "contract" implies a legal obligation.

 

[JSRG]

I was pretty sure that arbitration is only applicable for civil disputes. Once you cross over into the criminal it should no longer apply.

This is a civil dispute as far as I can tell. The suit isn't actually over the rape itself, but rather:

"Petitioners in this writ proceeding are former members of the Church of Scientology who reported to the police that another Church member had raped them. They allege that, in retaliation for their reports, the Church encouraged its members to engage in a vicious campaign of harassment against them."

That's what the lawsuit is over.

 

[Paidiske]

I dont think the legal system ever meddles in vows - nor should it.

I think it does, at least sometimes. Marriage comes to mind as an example.

 

[durangodawood]

I think it does, at least sometimes. Marriage comes to mind as an example.

Interesting. But I view the vows themselves as a parallel matter. I dont think the state requires any particular vow in order to obtain a marriage license. At least in the US.

 

[Paidiske]

Interesting. But I view the vows themselves as a parallel matter. I dont think the state requires any particular vow in order to obtain a marriage license. At least in the US.

Your system is very different to ours (we don't have marriage licences), so I don't fully understand that. But a marriage is made by the couple taking vows, rather than signing a contract, so...

I think it's just that society has changed. For some things which are holdovers from a pre-universal literacy age, vows are still taken. For more modern things, contracts have become the norm. Who knows, two hundred years from now there might be some technological thing instead? But the point is that some agreements are legally enforceable (or at least regulated), and some are not.

 

[durangodawood]

Your system is very different to ours (we don't have marriage licences), so I don't fully understand that. But a marriage is made by the couple taking vows, rather than signing a contract, so...

I think it's just that society has changed. For some things which are holdovers from a pre-universal literacy age, vows are still taken. For more modern things, contracts have become the norm. Who knows, two hundred years from now there might be some technological thing instead? But the point is that some agreements are legally enforceable (or at least regulated), and some are not.

I dont even think the vows are necessarily formalized as a signed document or even as an oral contract. If someone decides to use the vows for legal leverage do they have to submit to the court old video of the wedding? I mean vows often include stuff like "to be my best friend" etc. If your husband finds a better friend, whats your recourse?

I do think the state can grant divorce for infidelity. But thats sort of assumed by the state. There may have been no vow whatsoever on that topic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Scientology looms over actor Danny Masterson rape case. How much will come out at trial?

With impressionable jurors set to determine Masterson’s fate, his attorney Phillip Cohen argued at the hearing earlier this month that the actor’s proximity to the much-maligned religion will be used to paint him as guilty by association.

Prosecutors countered that Scientology, founded by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1950s, is fundamental to everything the women went through and should be mentioned by name at trial.

Olmedo struck a middle ground in her ruling.

Saying the church’s “tentacles” undeniably reach into many facets of the trial, she excluded the prosecution’s proposed expert, but found that the religion is relevant. She rejected Cohen’s argument that it should not be named because of negative views jurors may have.

Olmedo compared the case to the 2011 rape prosecution of Warren Jeffs, the self-proclaimed prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. The tenets of the Mormonism offshoot were admitted at trial to provide context for why a 15-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl submitted to rapes at the hands of Jeffs, Olmedo said.

[However, prosecutors will NOT be allowed to discuss the specifics of the harassment campaign allegedly conducted by the church against the three victims (which is the subject of a separate civil suit to be heard after the criminal trial).]