## Facts

- Dr. Yaakov Abdelhak, an Orthodox Jewish physician whose practice largely served Orthodox Jewish women, became involved in a marital dispute after his wife sought a civil divorce and custody of their children.
- Abdelhak’s wife demanded that he provide a *Get* (a religious divorce), while Abdelhak, relying on rabbinic advice, maintained he was not religiously obligated to do so under the circumstances.
- The Jewish Press, an Orthodox Jewish newspaper, published Abdelhak’s name in a list used to pressure husbands allegedly refusing to give a *Get* and/or alleged to be subject to a *seruv* (a rabbinical contempt or sanction order).
- Abdelhak claimed the publication falsely stated or implied that a *seruv* had been issued against him and injured his reputation within the Orthodox Jewish community, harming his medical practice.
- After Abdelhak eventually provided the *Get*, the newspaper published a retraction.
- Abdelhak sued the newspaper and others for defamation and related torts, including false light and invasion of privacy.

## Issues

1. Whether civil courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over defamation and related tort claims when adjudication would require interpretation and application of Orthodox Jewish doctrine and practice.
2. Whether the claims could be resolved using neutral principles of law, or whether deciding falsity, defamatory meaning, fault, and damages would create constitutionally impermissible entanglement with religion.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal under Rule 4:6-2(a) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that the claims could not be adjudicated without excessive entanglement in religious doctrine.
- The court rejected the argument that the secular label of “defamation” and the non-clerical status of defendants eliminated entanglement concerns.

## Legal Principles

- Courts must abstain from disputes that require factfinders to interpret or apply contested religious doctrine, because the First Amendment bars excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
- The availability of some secular, “neutral” elements (e.g., whether words were published) does not create jurisdiction if the core elements of liability and damages depend on religious meaning.
- Even in facially secular tort actions against non-clergy defendants, subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking when adjudication would require understanding and applying religious standards to determine falsity, opprobrium, or reputational harm within a faith community.

## Conclusion

Because resolving whether the publication was false, defamatory, and damaging depended on the religious significance of a *Get* and a *seruv* within Orthodox Jewish law and community practice, the courts lacked jurisdiction and the complaint was properly dismissed.


Abdelhak v. Jewish Press, Inc., 411 N.J. Super. 211, 985 A.2d 197 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)