Whether the First Amendment requires courts to enforce express trusts in church governing documents or whether state law may render such trusts unenforceable

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The First Amendment limits civil courts’ authority to resolve disputes within a church. For more than a century, this Court respected those limits by mandating deference to the appropriate ecclesiastical body’s resolution of church-property disputes. See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871). The Court changed course in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). There, by a 5-4 vote, the Court held that states may either defer or apply “neutral principles of law.” Id. at 602. The Court identified two safeguards, however, that it said would “protect the free exercise rights” of churches and their congregants: first, a church may “ensure” it retains control of property by amending its governing documents to “recite an express trust”; and, second, courts “must defer” to religious bodies on questions of “doctrine or polity.” Id. at 602, 604-606. State high courts are now split over whether and how to apply those safeguards. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the First Amendment requires courts to enforce express trusts in church governing documents (as some jurisdictions hold, in line with Jones’s first safeguard), or whether state law may render such trusts unenforceable (as others hold). 2. Whether the First Amendment requires courts to defer to churches on questions of polity (as some jurisdictions hold, in line with Jones’s second safeguard), or whether courts may apply state law to determine the structure of a church (as others hold). 3. Whether the neutral-principles approach may constitutionally be applied—either prospectively or retroactively—to resolve church-property disputes. (i)