Court says church autonomy forecloses claims tied to religious teachings and finds causation lacking for tithing-use theory
Filed August 26, 2025.
They came to court with two paths to a racketeering claim. One turned on what church leaders taught about foundational events of the faith. The other challenged how tithes were used. On Tuesday, a Tenth Circuit panel shut both doors, affirming dismissal of a putative class action brought by three former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The panel, in an opinion by Judge Eid, said the church autonomy doctrine bars the plaintiffs’ RICO theory that alleged fraud in the Church’s account of its history because resolving that dispute would require a civil court to assess the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. The court also held it need not decide whether church autonomy applies to the separate theory about tithing use, because the complaint failed to plausibly allege a causal link between any misstatements on tithing and the plaintiffs’ alleged injury.
The case began in 2019, when Laura A. Gaddy filed a putative class action; Lyle D. Small and Leanne R. Harris later joined. The complaint alleged two RICO theories: fraudulent misrepresentation about church history and fraudulent misuse of tithes. The district court granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, relying in part on church autonomy and in part on pleading defects. The panel affirmed.
The court recapped the procedural path: an initial complaint dismissed under the Religion Clauses, an amended complaint with added factual allegations, and finally a second amended complaint expanding the theories and facts. The district court dismissed the religious-history claims as nonjusticiable and later dismissed the tithing-based RICO theory for failure to adequately plead the necessary elements. The Tenth Circuit agreed with those outcomes.
On church autonomy, the panel emphasized that disputes requiring a court to weigh or test religious doctrine are outside a civil tribunal’s role. Because the plaintiffs’ first RICO theory would have required adjudication of the truth of religious teachings, it was barred.
On causation and the tithing theory, the opinion concluded the plaintiffs did not plead facts that plausibly tied any challenged statement about tithing use to specific donations they would not have made but for those statements. The court explained that alleging one was misled is not enough to satisfy RICO’s “by reason of” requirement without a plausible causal chain linking the statements to the injury.
Attorneys on the briefs included Kay Burningham for the appellants and David J. Jordan of Foley & Lardner for the appellee. Amicus briefs were filed by several religious organizations. The panel consisted of Judges Hartz, Phillips, and Eid, with Judge Eid authoring the opinion.
The ruling leaves the district court’s dismissal in place. Potential next steps include a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc in the Tenth Circuit or a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, subject to the applicable deadlines.
Commentary
At its core, the Tenth Circuit’s decision illustrates a recurring tension in American law: the balance between protecting religious freedom and allowing courts to hear fraud claims. The plaintiffs sought to frame their case under RICO, a statute designed to combat organized crime, but the court emphasized that claims challenging the truth of religious teachings are off limits to civil tribunals. This ruling reinforces a long-standing boundary that protects churches from having their doctrines litigated in court.
The court’s treatment of the tithing theory underscores another hurdle for plaintiffs in fraud-based claims: causation. To succeed under RICO, a plaintiff must show not only that a statement was misleading but also that it directly caused them harm. Here, the court concluded the plaintiffs had not plausibly tied their donations to any particular misstatement. Without a clear chain of cause and effect, the claim could not move forward.
These two holdings—church autonomy and causation—operate independently, and the panel highlighted both. Even if the tithing claims were not barred by religious liberty concerns, they fell short under traditional pleading standards. This dual reasoning makes the decision more robust against future challenge because it rests on more than one doctrinal foundation.
Going forward, the plaintiffs face limited options. They may petition the Tenth Circuit for rehearing en banc or seek Supreme Court review. But unless a higher court reconsiders the intersection of RICO and church autonomy, the ruling will likely stand as an example of how civil courts handle cases that straddle the line between religious belief and secular law.
Tags: LDS Church RICO lawsuit, Tenth Circuit decision, church autonomy doctrine, tithing-use claims, federal appellate ruling
Link to ruling: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111288755.pdf