Baptist leaders urge Supreme Court to rein in expansive church autonomy ruling
Petition says decision 'dangerously expands the church‑autonomy doctrine' and leaves Baptist ministers without recourse to seek redress for ordinary civil wrongs.
WASHINGTON – A coalition of current and former Baptist leaders is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision they say dangerously expands the church‑autonomy doctrine and leaves Baptist ministers without any forum—religious or secular—to seek redress for ordinary civil wrongs.
Filed Feb. 9 by 52 current and former Southern Baptist leaders, an amicus brief argues that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in McRaney v. North American Mission Board stretches the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” far beyond its constitutional purpose. The exception, leaders note, protects a religious body’s authority to “select, supervise, and remove its own ministers,” but only within its own sphere of ecclesiastical authority. The brief states that the Fifth Circuit “extended the ministerial exception beyond ecclesiastical authority and anchored it instead in voluntary association among religious entities,” a move the leaders say has no grounding in precedent.
At the center of the dispute is Will McRaney, former executive of the Baptist Convention of Maryland/Delaware (BCMD), who alleges the North American Mission Board (NAMB) interfered with his employment, damaged his reputation, and derailed post‑termination opportunities. NAMB and BCMD are legally and ecclesiastically autonomous bodies that cooperated through a Strategic Partnership Agreement. “NAMB did not employ McRaney, possessed no authority to appoint, discipline, or remove BCMD personnel, and exercised no ecclesiastical authority whatsoever over BCMD’s faith, doctrine, or governance,” the brief notes.
The amici argue that the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning effectively transforms any dispute involving religious actors into a non‑justiciable matter if the defendant frames its actions as mission‑related. That approach, they warn, “converts a shield for church governance into a rule of non‑adjudication for secular claims,” even when adjudication requires no doctrinal inquiry.
The brief stresses that Baptist polity—unlike hierarchical traditions with church courts—rests on autonomy, non‑hierarchy, and voluntary cooperation.
“There is no centralized Baptist church, no denominational tribunal, and no authority empowered to govern Baptist churches,” the petition states. Because Baptists intentionally lack ecclesiastical courts, they have historically relied on secular courts to resolve disputes that do not involve doctrine. Extending the ministerial exception to disputes between autonomous Baptist bodies, it is argued, “nullifies core features of Baptist polity” and leaves ministers uniquely vulnerable.
The amici also contend that McRaney’s claims can be resolved using neutral legal principles. Determining whether NAMB made false statements, acted intentionally, or caused foreseeable harm does not require courts to evaluate religious doctrine, they argue. Treating any inquiry into intent or causation as inherently ecclesiastical “collapses neutral fact‑finding into ecclesiastical adjudication.”
The brief warns that the Fifth Circuit’s approach creates a “denominationally skewed no‑recourse zone” for intentional torts. In traditions with hierarchical structures, internal tribunals may offer remedies. For Baptists, no such forum exists. As a result, the ruling “puts Baptists at risk precisely because they operate in religious circles and are employed by religious institutions.”
The Supreme Court is urged to clarify that the ministerial exception applies only where a religious defendant exercises actual ecclesiastical authority over the minister in question—not merely because two religious bodies cooperate. Without such clarification, the leaders argue, the First Amendment will be misapplied in ways that deny justice rather than protect religious liberty.
Related: