No refunds for tithes

In late January, a federal appeals court ruled the Salt Lake City–based Latter-day Saints religious organization doesn’t have to return over $5 million in tithes to a Utah businessman who claimed his donations were improperly used.

In a 2021 lawsuit, James Huntsman, a brother of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., claimed the Mormon group committed fraud by using his funds to revitalize the area surrounding its headquarters, known as Temple Square. He argued that the organization failed to make clear that earnings from a reserve fund containing tithe money would be used for the more than $1 billion commercial project.

In its Jan. 31 order, a unanimous 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his claim, but judges split over the rationale.

Six judges denied the claim because they said Huntsman failed to demonstrate that his tithes were used in the commercial project. “The Church had long explained that the sources of the reserve funds include tithing funds,” wrote Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland. “Huntsman has not presented evidence that the Church did anything other than what it said it would do.”

But courts have no business second-­guessing what was ultimately a religious matter, said the other five judges. Writing for four judges, Circuit Judge Daniel Bress agreed that no fraud had been committed but said what resolved the case was the doctrine of church autonomy, derived from the First Amendment. “We as courts are not here to emcee religious disputes, much less decide them,” wrote Bress.

In a separate opinion, Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay underscored the importance of courts staying out of religious matters. “Resolving [Huntsman’s] claims requires swimming in a current of religious affairs,” Bumatay wrote. “What is a ‘tithe?’ Who can speak for the Church on the meaning of ‘tithes?’ What are Church members’ obligations to offer ‘tithes?’ These are questions that only ecclesiastical authorities—not federal courts—can decide.”

Lael Weinberger, a constitutional law expert, agreed with Bumatay. “Going forward, I hope more judges will follow Judge Bumatay’s lead,” he told me. “Otherwise I expect some confusion about the precise situation in which the Constitution would prohibit this kind of litigation.”

Donald Trump Associated Press / Photo by Evan Vucci

Trump DEI ban heads to court

Two of President Donald Trump’s executive orders shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion programs encountered their first legal challenge in early February. In a federal lawsuit, the city of Baltimore and several other organizations asked a U.S. District Court to block the orders, which aim to end federal government support for DEI programs and restore merit-based hiring and contracting.

In their Feb. 3 complaint, the challengers allege the executive orders are overly vague and infringe on free speech, violating the First Amendment. The city claims it stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants if it does not comply.

The lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward, a Washington-based pro bono law firm that has challenged the Trump administration over 100 times since 2017. —S.W.