Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lutzer Petition

Lutzer Petition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 533 |Likes:
Published by religionclause

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: religionclause on Mar 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/23/2012

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-_____
W
ILSON
-E
PES
P
RINTING
C
O
.,
 
I
NC
.
 
 – 
 
(202)
 
789-0096
 
 – 
 
W
ASHINGTON
,
 
D.C.
 
20002
 I
N
T
HE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
————E
RWIN
L
UTZER
,
 Petitioner,
 v.R
ICHARD
 A.
 
D
UNCAN
,
 Respondent.
————
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorarito the Appellate Court of the State of Illinois,Second District
————
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
————
J
 AMES
 W.
 
F
ORD
 F
ORD
&
 
B
RITTON
,
 
P.C.33
 
N.
 
Dearborn St., Suite 300Chicago, Illinois 60602(312)
 
924-7505J.
 
S
HELBY 
S
HARPE
S
HARPE
&
 
R
ECTOR
,
 
P.C.6100
 
 Western Place,Suite 1000Fort Worth, Texas
 
76107(817)
 
338-4900 A 
 ARON
M.
 
S
TREETT
 
Counsel of Record
B
 AKER
B
OTTS
L.L.P.910 Louisiana StreetHouston, Texas 77002(713)
 
229-1855aaron.streett@bakerbotts.comE
 VAN
 A.
 
 Y 
OUNG
 B
 AKER
B
OTTS
L.L.P.98
 
San Jacinto BoulevardSuite 1500 Austin, Texas 78701(512) 322-2506
Counsel for Petitioner Erwin Lutzer 
 
(i)
QUESTION PRESENTED
This Court has stated that the First Amendmentshields churches from civil-court scrutiny “over the selec-tion of those who will personify [their] beliefs.”
 Ho-sanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
 v.
 EEOC 
, 132 S.Ct. 694, 706 (2012).
 
Moreover, consistent with its settled precedent, the Court removed from thereach of civil litigation any inquiry into whether the reli-gious motivation for such personnel decision “was pretex-tual,”
id.
at 709, or whether the discipline “compl[ied] with church laws and regulations,”
id.
at 705. In thiscase, by contrast, the court below sustained a jury verdictagainst the senior pastor of a church when the trial in-cluded extensive questioning of the findings made duringthe church-discipline process, the sincerity and validity of the religious grounds for the revocation of a minister’sordination, and whether the church had adhered to itsown internal procedures.The question presented is whether the First Amend-ment permits imposing liability on a church pastor forrevoking the ordination of a minister and communicatingthe reasons for that revocation to those who had initiatedthe internal disciplinary process: leaders of the church where that minister was then serving.
 
ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Erwin Lutzer was a defendant in the circuit court, anappellant in the state appellate court, and a petitioner inthe state supreme court.Richard A. Duncan was a plaintiff in the circuit court,an appellee in the state appellate court, and a respondentin the state supreme court.Bervin Peterson was a defendant in the circuit court.The Moody Church was a defendant in the circuitcourt.Hope Church was a plaintiff in the circuit court.

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
messagerul liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->