A Texas appeals court has chipped away at some of the legal arguments Southern Methodist University (SMU) has used to cut its ties to the United Methodist Church after the church barred same-sex marriage ceremonies and LGBTQ clergy.
In a complex 83-page decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeals on July 26 overturned some trial court findings that favored SMU in its bid to separate from the South Central Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church. In 2019, the church's General Conference approved a more traditionalist interpretation of church doctrine that limited LGBTQ participation in church activities and the clergy.
Since then, several Methodist entities, including SMU, have moved to disaffiliate with the church over the issue of inclusiveness. SMU’s president, R. Gerald Turn, has said SMU is distinct from the religious institution and would govern itself independently from the national church. In turn, the school approved governing amendments that remove all references to the conference’s “ownership and control of SMU,” according to the opinion..
The appeals court also emphasized the longstanding role the church has had in the makeup of the school’s Board of Trustees and in its governing documents.
“In this case of first impression, we must determine whether a nonprofit corporation like SMU, whose governing documents provide that it is to be ‘forever owned, maintained and controlled’ by the conference and that no amendments to said articles ‘shall ever be made’ without the conference’s prior approval, can unilaterally amend the articles to remove these provisions and all other references to the conference,” the opinion states.
The justices concluded that the trial court erred when it dismissed the conference’s breach-of-contract claim. But the court upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the conference’s claim that SMU’s move to separate from the church represented a breach of fiduciary duty.
“We have already determined … that the conference has no legal or equitable title to the SMU campus under its claim of fiduciary duty and therefore affirm summary judgment on that theory of recovery,” the appeals court said.
The trial court also erred in rejecting the idea that the conference cannot recoup its attorney’s fees, the opinion says. The conference has offered evidence of a loss and entitlement to damages, the justices concluded.
The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court for further actions that are consistent with the July 26 opinion.