Whether the Texas Supreme Court's decision awarding petitioner's sanctuary and rectory to a dissident faction in contravention of the will of petitioner's parishioners and an express-trust provision is consistent with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court historically required civil courts adjudicating church property disputes to defer to the highest church authorities. See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872). In Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979), a bare majority of the Court sanctioned another approach: the so-called “neutral principles of law” approach, which permits courts to consider, inter alia, property deeds, state statutes, and church governing documents. At the same time, Jones warned against resolving ecclesiastical questions or altering rules retroactively while providing a roadmap for avoiding entanglement going forward: Churches could adopt express-trust provisions governing church property, which civil courts would honor. Petitioner is a parish in Texas affiliated with The Episcopal Church (TEC). In the decision below, the Texas Supreme Court awarded a dissident faction more than $100 million in church property, including petitioner’s sanctuary and rectory—even though a supermajority of petitioners’ parishioners voted to remain aligned with TEC. In so doing, the court refused to enforce the express-trust provision that would ensure petitioner’s retention of its sanctuary and rectory. That decision deepens a conflict, violates Jones, and, if correct, would justify overruling Jones. The question presented is: Whether the Texas Supreme Court’s decision awarding petitioner's sanctuary and rectory to a dissident faction in contravention of the will of petitioner’s parishioners and an_ express-trust provision is consistent with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.