7th Cir.: Terminated Fraternity Member Cannot Bring Claim Based Merely on Improper Procedure

Earlier this week, the Seventh Circuit reminded us that Indiana courts do not interfere with a voluntary association’s internal affairs—like membership decisions—absent some showing of “fraud, other illegality, or abuse of civil or property rights.” It cited 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘢 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘚𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘈𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘷. 𝘙𝘦𝘺𝘦𝘴 and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal in an unpublished order without oral argument.

The appeal involved a pro se plaintiff who sued his fraternity because it terminated his lifetime membership for allegedly arbitrary and personal reasons. As the court explained, “Misapplying the organization’s rules, however, is not in itself illegal or fraudulent.” Because it was “an internal matter,” it is “not subject to judicial intervention.”

Nothing new or exciting, but it reminds us of the broad leeway Indiana membership nonprofits—including religious organizations—have in policing their own procedures.

Read the order here.

“7th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Does Not Cover Hostile Work Environment Claims, Absent Tangible Employment Action7th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Does Not Cover Hostile Work Environment Claims, Absent Tangible Employment Action”

“7th Circuit: Ministerial Exception Does Not Cover Hostile Work Environment Claims, Absent Tangible Employment Action.” Religion Clause summarizes the decision here.

“First Amendment suit challenging Charter School Act proceeds”

“First Amendment suit challenging Charter School Act proceeds” The Indiana Lawyer reports here on a decision denying in part a motion to dismiss in Indiana Coalition for Public Education – Monroe County and South Central Indiana, Inc. v. Jennifer McCormick, James Betley, 1:17-cv-01295 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 29, 2017). Religion Clause reports here.

1742 Housing allowance decision

[podcast src=”https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/5853761/height/90/width/450/theme/custom/autonext/no/thumbnail/yes/autoplay/no/preload/no/no_addthis/no/direction/forward/render-playlist/no/custom-color/c30000/” height=”90″ width=”450″ placement=”top”]The federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently held that the Tax Code’s housing allowance violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The decision in Gaylor v. Mnuchin, (W.D. Wis., Oct. 6, 2017), deals with 26 U.S.C. § 107(2). It does not affect the exemption from taxed income based on the value of a church-owned home, traditionally referred to as a parsonage, which is found in 26 U.S.C. § 107(1). Josh explains how the housing-allowance exemption works, why the court concluded it is unconstitutional, and what ministers and religious organizations should look for as the case progresses.

Continue reading “1742 Housing allowance decision”

“Court Says Tax Code’s Parsonage Allowance Is Unconstitutional”

Court Says Tax Code’s Parsonage Allowance Is Unconstitutional” Religion Clause reports here on Gaylor v. Mnuchin, (W.D. Wis., Oct. 6, 2017). Freedom From Religion Foundation has a press release here. Here’s an excerpt from the court’s decision: Continue reading ““Court Says Tax Code’s Parsonage Allowance Is Unconstitutional””