Application for a stay of the District Court's order denying a
preliminary injunction sought by a church (applicants) to preclude
respondents from instituting all action against the applicants in
state court, is denied.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.
Upon consideration of the applicants' request for a stay of the
order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California denying their prayer for a preliminary injunction
precluding respondents, including George Deukmejian, the Attorney
General of California, from instituting an action against the
applicants in state court, the request is hereby denied.
The District Court's opinion denying the prayer for a
preliminary injunction indicates that the Attorney General of
California has the traditional power of the chief law enforcement
officer of most jurisdictions to intervene in the administration of
charitable trusts or corporations when he has reason to believe
that they are not being administered in accordance with the trust
instrument or with state law. We have stated previously that a
trial judge's determination of a preliminary injunction should be
reversed by this Court or by other appellate courts in the federal
system only when the judge's "discretion was improvidently
exercised."
Alabama v. United States, 279 U.
S. 229,
279 U. S. 231
(1929).
See also Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. SCRAP,
409 U. S. 1207
(1972) (BURGER, C.J., in chambers);
Keyes v. School Dist. No.
1, Denver, Colo., 396 U. S. 1215
(1969) (BRENNAN, J., in chambers).
Applicants contend, however, that by reason of the fact that
they are a church, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
Page 444 U. S. 1308
to the United States Constitution, they are somehow entitled to
different treatment than that accorded to other charitable trusts.
But we held only last Term that state courts might resolve property
disputes in which hierarchical church organizations were involved
in accordance with "neutral principles" of state law.
Jones v
Wolf, 443 U. S. 595,
443 U. S. 602
(1979);
see also Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church,
393 U. S. 440,
393 U. S. 449
(1969). The District Court presumably found that this principle
will probably be applicable in this litigation. The Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also denied the application for a
stay. I find no reason to differ with the conclusion of these two
courts. Applicants' request for relief is accordingly denied.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment