The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the coming weeks on Southern Methodist University’s attempt to secede from the United Methodist Church.
What we know: The Texas Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments between Southern Methodist University and the South Central Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church on January 15th.
Courts will need to decide who has ultimate authority over school decisions. Either the school board or the church.
The church argues that the school’s bylaws give the council the authority to block amendments to those bylaws.
The inside story: In 2019, SMU’s Board of Trustees voted to amend the school’s charter to clarify that the university is a separate entity from the United Methodist Church.
The move came after the church voted to maintain its recognition of same-sex marriage and its ban on ordaining clergy members who are members of the LGBTQ community.
Among these amendments, SMU made it clear that the school would be governed solely by a board of directors.
This prompted the South Central Jurisdictional Conference to file a lawsuit alleging that the proposed amendment was invalid because it lacked board approval and the university’s property was owned by the conference.
The conference amended its claim, citing Texas law that allows the university to recover losses because it submitted a new amendment to the commissioner, stating that the university had caused financial harm to the conference and was therefore in breach of its contract with the conference and a trustee. He claimed that he had breached his duty. state.
All arguments made by the conference were rejected by the trial court.
This judgment was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the breach of contract determination.
The university appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing the court ignored state rules about who can claim “ultra vires.”
An ultra vires claim is a claim that a company or government acted in excess of its legal authority.
In Texas, only shareholders, the entity, or the attorney general may bring such claims against the entity.
SMU argued that the conference was not subject to these rules because it had no vested interest in the university.
Lawyers for the university said this is the first time a court has said that a nonmember nonprofit organization’s articles of incorporation are binding contracts for purposes of breach of contract claims.
In their Supreme Court filing, SMU’s lawyers argued that the Court of Appeals had “held the long-held belief that a legal opinion cannot be ‘materially false’ or cause harm in the absence of cognizable harm.” He ignored precedent.”
By the numbers: SCJC covers eight states: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, according to its website.
In addition to SMU, the conference operates the Lydia Patterson Institute in El Paso and St. Paul’s School of Theology, based in Leawood, Kan., and Oklahoma City.
According to SMU’s website, more than 12,000 students attend the university in Dallas.
What happens next: The Texas Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the case for January 15th. The court will hear arguments from 9 a.m. to noon.
Sources: Information for this article comes from Texas Supreme Court filings, the SCJC website, and the SMU website.
texas education religion
