A.S. Haley on the Episcopal Church Case and the California Supreme Court

Posted by Kendall Harmon

In what can be described only as a somewhat terse performance by its collective justices, the California Supreme Court has corrected a rather glaring error in its prior opinion in The Episcopal Church Cases, 45 Cal.4th 467 (2009). It has published a short per curiam (meaning: unsigned) order, which it says does not affect its earlier judgment. But since the order has no byline, and carries no explanation, its significance is easy to miss.

Those to my left have, as usual, jumped to totally unwarranted conclusions. Out of the three sentences used by the Court to describe what it was doing, they select only this one: "The [local churches'] petition for rehearing is denied." Then they trumpet headlines like "California breakaway churches lose in court again". What they ignore are these words: "Request for modification granted. . . The opinion is modified." (Emphasis added.) If I were to read things as one-sidedly as they do, I could have titled this post: "California orthodox churches win in Supreme Court"; or (only slightly less outrageous) "Supreme Court concedes mistake in prior ruling in favor of ECUSA". I have decided instead to reach two birds with just one cast, and call what has happened in both the Supreme Court and on liberal blogs "rushing to judgment".

Read it carefully and follow all the links.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Episcopal Church (TEC) • TEC Conflicts • TEC Conflicts: Los Angeles • * Culture-Watch • Law & Legal Issues • Religion & Culture

3 Comments
Posted February 26, 2009 at 7:01 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Sir Highmoor wrote:

The result: more money will be spent in and out of court to control real estate for what?

February 26, 9:53 am | [comment link]
2. Brian from T19 wrote:

Ditto #1.  Unfortunately there are very few pragmatic attorneys.

February 26, 4:56 pm | [comment link]
3. Irenaeus wrote:

As usual, excellent analysis by A.S. Haley.

The procedural error in the California Supreme Court’s original opinion is downright sloppy. It is also unseemly: not as bad as confusing an indictment with a conviction but still suggestive of injudicious haste to achieve a desired result.

February 26, 6:11 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): The situation in Mexico Continues to be Serious

Previous entry (below): A USA Today Editorial: Expect more bank bailouts, but demand good terms

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)