## Facts

- Janice Paul was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, was baptized in 1967, and participated extensively in congregational activities.
- In 1975, Paul’s parents were expelled from the congregation; Paul alleged elders warned her not to challenge the expulsion and suggested she could face the same sanction.
- Paul later withdrew from the faith and initially maintained social relationships with Jehovah’s Witness members.
- In 1981, the church adopted an interpretation requiring members to treat those who had disassociated as if they were expelled and to avoid social contact with them.
- After that change, members refused to speak with Paul, associate with her socially, or acknowledge her presence.
- Paul alleged the resulting ostracism caused emotional distress and other harms and sued under state tort theories including defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether the Free Exercise Clause (and parallel state constitutional protection) bars imposing state tort liability on a religious organization and its members for religiously motivated shunning of a former member.
2. Whether a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional and reputational injuries arising from a church’s doctrinally grounded disciplinary practice.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on constitutional grounds, even though the district court had relied on different reasons.
- The court held the defendants had a constitutionally protected privilege to engage in shunning as a matter of religious faith and discipline.
- Because Paul’s alleged injuries were intangible harms flowing from the religious practice itself, tort damages would impermissibly burden free exercise.

## Legal Principles

- The Free Exercise Clause can bar application of state tort law when liability would substantially interfere with a doctrinally grounded religious practice.
- Courts may not impose damages that would deter or punish religious discipline based on members’ adherence to sincerely held religious obligations, where the complained-of harms are emotional, social, or reputational consequences of that religious practice.
- Stronger state interests may justify regulation of conduct involving physical coercion or violence, but not liability for intangible injuries arising from constitutionally protected religious exercise.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that tort claims seeking damages for emotional and reputational injuries caused by religiously mandated shunning are barred by the Free Exercise Clause, and it affirmed summary judgment for the Jehovah’s Witness corporate entities on that basis.


Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of N.Y., Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987)