In March of 2021, James Huntsman filed a lawsuit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Sometimes referred to as Mormon) alleging that that he paid tithing based on false statements given by then President Gordon B. Hinkley who said that tithing funds would not be used to build the City Creek Mall. What President Hinkley said was as follows:
But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.
Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.[i]
On January 31, 2025, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the Church.
There were some disappointed people on the ExMormon Subreddit and on LDSX who believed Huntsman would prevail in this case even though other members in their community warned against this 4 years ago. Upon seeing the final ruling. one ExMormon subreddit member said, “Confirmation bias is a real thing. Anyone who looked at this case from unbiased view based in case law would have predicted this ruling.”(Quote from ExMormon Subredditer Different_Ground_788)
You can read the entire court ruling here.
But as many don’t like to read 63-page-long documents from court rulings, here are some excerpts from the ruling:
SUMMARY
The en banc court held that no reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project.[ii]
The Church had long explained that the sources of the reserve funds included tithing funds, and Huntsman had not presented evidence that the Church did anything other than what it said it would do.[iii]
Accordingly, the record did not support a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation.[iv]
FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, with whom MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and OWENS, SUNG, SANCHEZ, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, join:
Summary judgment is proper when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (here, Huntsman), there is “no genuine issue of material fact.”[v]
No reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project.[vi]
Although the Church stated that no tithing funds would be used to fund City Creek, it also clarified that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used.[vii]
Church had long explained that the sources of the reserve funds include tithing funds. Huntsman has not presented evidence that the Church did anything other than what it said it would do.[viii]
In sum, on this record, no reasonable juror could conclude that the Church made a “knowingly false representation of fact” to Huntsman about the source of funds for the City Creek project.[ix]
There was a side claim about an investment in Beneficial life which was also addressed:
Because the record contains no representations by the Church about Beneficial Life in particular, it does not support a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation.[x]
BRESS, Circuit Judge, with whom M. SMITH and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, join, and with whom VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, joins except as to footnotes 1 and 2, concurring in the judgment:
The majority is correct that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation even on the terms of plaintiff’s own allegations. But it would have done well for the en banc court to recognize the obvious: there is no way in which the plaintiff here could prevail without running headlong into basic First Amendment prohibitions on courts resolving ecclesiastical disputes. [xi]
Constitutional protections for religious freedom provide the core principles that drive the inescapable outcome in this case. “The First Amendment protects the right of religious institutions ‘to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’” Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732, 736 (2020) (quoting Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952)). Courts therefore cannot resolve disagreements over church teachings and governance, which would pose grave threats to the autonomy of religious organizations. Yet governmental intrusion on religion is precisely what plaintiff’s suit would require, if it were to go any further.[xii]
Although plaintiff’s claims can be rejected even as he styles them, which is the approach the majority takes, we should not indulge in the illusion that this is merely a secular lawsuit about civil fraud. Under the First Amendment, the plaintiff’s challenge to the Church’s understanding of tithing is not susceptible to resolution in a court of law, lest the judiciary wrest control from religious authorities over matters of theological concern. It would have been straightforward and preferable for the court to recognize that plaintiff’s unprecedented theory encounters overwhelming First Amendment impediments. While every judge on this panel agrees that the plaintiff’s claims fail, I write separately to explain why a suit like this could never succeed under the First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine.[xiii]
It is possible to resolve this case as the majority does, by taking Huntsman’s allegations at face value and finding that on their surface, President Hinckley did not say that earnings on tithed funds would not be used for the City Creek project. President Hinckley, in other words, did not say what Huntsman says he said. As the majority therefore correctly concludes, “Huntsman has not presented evidence that the Church did anything other than what it said it would do.” Every judge on this en banc court to reach the question concludes the same, as did the district court.[xiv]
But the majority’s lawyerly comparison of President Hinckley’s statements with other Church comments and financial documents should not obscure a more fundamental point of constitutional principle: that the First Amendment’s protections for religious organizations would have never permitted Huntsman to prevail. Had the case gone further, it would have required the courts to resolve a religious disagreement, a transparent fight about the current course of the Church masquerading as a civil lawsuit. The First Amendment would clearly prohibit this.[xv]
In this case, resolving Huntsman’s fraud claim in his favor would violate core First Amendment principles.[xvi]
And the Church itself disagrees with Judge Bumatay’s position, arguing that one could narrowly reject Huntsman’s claims simply by concluding that he has misstated what President Hinckley said. I do not think it does any violence to church autonomy for a court to recognize, for example, that a claim against a religious organization is frivolous on its face. But even if we are not required to reach the church autonomy doctrine, the First Amendment lies at the heart of this case, as the Church has consistently argued. We should not ignore the church autonomy doctrine in explaining why a suit like this not only does, but must, fail.[xvii]
Huntsman cannot override the First Amendment’s protections by abstracting the Church’s statements about tithing from their religious context. President Hinckley was not addressing investors in a company. He was not required to speak through generally accepted accounting principles. President Hinckley was speaking as a prophet of God at a spiritual convocation about, among other things, funds the payment of which is required by divine revelation. Even religious tenets that “might seem incredible, if not preposterous,” may not be “subject to trial” on “their truth or falsity.”[xviii]
It is therefore irrelevant that, in stylized form, the elements of a fraud claim can have a secular orientation. It is likewise irrelevant that terms like “income” and “reserved funds” can have secular meanings. The question here is not whether it is possible to recast Huntsman’s argument in secular terms, without the religious trappings.[xix]
In this case in particular, it is startling to think that courts and juries would be examining a religious sermon for “accuracy,” much less concluding that the leader of a worldwide religion intended to defraud his congregants on religious matters that the Church’s canonical texts commit to his rightful authority. Nothing says “entanglement with religion” more than Huntsman’s apparent position that the head of a religious faith should have spoken with greater precision about inherently religious topics, lest the Church be found liable for fraud. How could this lawsuit proceed further without putting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on trial for its own beliefs?[xx]
In treating “tithing” in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an ambiguous concept that could be given meaning through law, facts, and evidence, Huntsman’s lawsuit presupposes that religious authorities could be subject to judicial review on core questions of religious belief. That would be a serious affront to the church autonomy doctrine and the First Amendment values it represents.[xxi]
But because Huntsman now argues that he made tithing contributions conditioned on certain understandings about how tithed funds would be used, to rule in his favor a factfinder would need to credit his position notwithstanding its evident contradiction with Church teachings. This would leave courts and juries making determinations about why a reasonable member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints would or should tithe.[xxii]
BUMATAY, Circuit Judge, concurring:
From page 35 through 63 is the opinion given by judge Patrick J. Bumatay. It can only be described as a master class on religious freedom and the detailed history on the rulings related to it. As this entire ruling hangs together, we won’t quote parts here but simply refer those interested in constitutional law to a complete reading.
[i] The Condition of the Church
[ii] Court ruling page 2
[iii] Court ruling page 2 & 3
[iv] Court ruling page 3
[v] FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, with whom MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and OWENS, SUNG, SANCHEZ, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, join: Page 12
[vi] Ibid page 13
[vii] Ibid page 13
[viii] Ibid page 14
[ix] Ibid page 17
[x] Ibid page 17
[xi] BRESS, Circuit Judge, with whom M. SMITH and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, join, and with whom VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, joins except as to footnotes 1 and 2, concurring in the judgment: page 18
[xii] Ibid page 19
[xiii] Ibid page 20
[xiv] Ibid page 25
[xv] Ibid page 25
[xvi] Ibid page 27
[xvii] Footnote 1 page 27
[xviii] Ibid page 28
[xix] Ibid page 29
[xx] Ibid page 30
[xxi] Ibid page 31
[xxii] Ibid page 33
Scott Gordon serves as President of FAIR. He has an MBA and a BA from Brigham Young University. He is currently an instructor of business at Shasta College in Redding, California and teaches business classes online at BYUI. Scott has held many positions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints including serving as a bishop, ward mission leader, seminary teacher, and member of the elder’s quorum presidency. He is married, has five children and 14 grandchildren.
About the Author
Thank you so very much for your very clear and concise explanations in this court case! I am very impressed, and carry a stronger conviction and testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His true church! I love our prophets!
Nice summary of the decision. And you are right about Judge Bumatay’s concurring opinion. It is possibly the best judicial opinion ever written about the constitutional commitment to church autonomy.