Tag: Supreme Court
-
The Dionisije Conundrum and why deference doesn’t work
I’m assuming, in this short article, that you’ve read about Serbian Diocese v. Milivojevich. But for those who haven’t: the Serbian Holy Assembly deposed Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich, and Illinois courts basically overruled the deposition on the grounds that the Holy Assembly hadn’t followed its own rules. The US Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that…
-
Ecumenical Patriarch denied appeal of Bishop Dionisije
Well, this is interesting. Lately, I’ve been looking at the Supreme Court case Serbian Diocese v. Milivojevich, which pitted the representatives of the Serbian Church against the incumbent American bishop, Dionisije, who had been defrocked by the Serbian Holy Assembly. The big question, which the Court answered in the negative, was whether civil courts in…
-
Neutral Principles of Law and the Problems of Deference
So far, we’ve been discussing the role of civil courts in church property disputes in the context of the “deference” approach: that is, the courts will defer to the decisions of the highest church authorities. This was the position taken by the Supreme Court in both of its major Orthodox cases, Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral and Serbian Diocese v. Milivojevich. Not…
-
Serbian Diocese v. Milivojevich, Part 2: Justice Rehnquist’s Dissenting Opinion
In my last article, I wrote about Justice Brennan’s majority opinion in Serbian Diocese v. Milivojevich, the 1976 Supreme Court case that deferred to the Holy Assembly of the Serbian Church in its defrocking of former US Bishop Dionisije and its reorganization of the American-Canadian Diocese. Click here for the opinions, and here for audio…
-
Serbian Diocese v. Milivojevich, Part 1: Justice Brennan’s majority opinion
We’ve introduced the first major Supreme Court case dealing with Orthodoxy, Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952). Today, we’ll begin an analysis of the other landmark case, Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976). Justice Brennan’s majority opinion includes a lengthy historical background on the case, and I won’t go into all the details here;…
-
1965 Yale Law Journal article on the Moscow-Metropolia Supreme Court case
In May 1965, the Yale Law Journal published a paper entitled, “Judicial Intervention in Church Property Disputes: Some Constitutional Considerations,” by Dennis E. Curtis. (For the lawyers reading this, the citation is 74 Yale L.J. 1113.) This paper focuses primarily on Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, which we’ve been discussing at length here. Curtis begins…
-
NY Times article on Moscow-Metropolia Supreme Court case
From the New York Times, November 25, 1952, page 31: U.S. COURT VOIDS ACT ON RUSSIAN CHURCH State Law to End Communist Sway in Orthodox Cathedral Here Is Upset by Ruling RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CITED 8-to-1 Decision Holds Action Violated 14th Amendment — Jackson Lone Dissenter BY CLAYTON KNOWLES WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — The Supreme Court…
-
Moscow v. the Metropolia, part 4: initial impressions
To read my previous articles on the 1952 Supreme Court case Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, click here. For the full text of the Supreme Court opinions, click here. In my last four articles, I summarized the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral. Here, I will offer my initial impressions of…
-
Moscow v. the Metropolia in the Supreme Court, Part 3: Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion
Lately, I’ve been analyzing the Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, a landmark 1952 Supreme Court case. For all the articles I’ve written on the case, click here. In this article, I am focusing on Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion. (A brief note: in the past articles, I erroneously referred to Justice Jackson as Justice Black. I…
-
Moscow v. the Metropolia in the Supreme Court, Part 2: Justice Frankfurter’s concurring opinion
In my previous two articles (available here), I discussed the majority opinion in the 1952 Supreme Court case Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral. Today, I’ll discuss the concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter. And just to be clear — “concurring opinion” means that Justice Frankfurter agreed with the ultimate outcome of the case (a victory for the Moscow Patriarchal jurisdiction), but differed to…