Ordaining Lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH )

MONASTERY STOREHOUSE, a )
Washington non-profit corporation; ERIN )
)
PATTERSON, an individual; GABRIEL ) Case No. ______________
BISER, an individual; and JAMES WELCH, )
an individual, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
WAYNE NABORS, in his official capacity )
as County Clerk of Putnam County, )
Tennessee; LISA DUKE CROWELL, in her )
official capacity as County Clerk of )
)
Rutherford County, Tennessee; WILLIAM )
K. KNOWLES, in his official capacity as )
County Clerk of Hamilton County, )
Tennessee; ELAINE ANDERSON, in her )
official capacity as County Clerk of )
Williamson County, Tennessee; and )
)
HERBERT H. SLATERY III, in his official )
capacity as Attorney General of the State of )
Tennessee, )
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Introduction
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Tennessee Constitution, to
invalidate and enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-
301, as amended by Tennessee 2019 Public Chapter 415, which violate the constitutional rights
of Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse (“ULC Monastery” or “the Church”), its
ministers, and persons who wish to have their marriages solemnized by the Church’s ministers.
Case 2:19-cv-00049 Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

2. ULC Monastery is a non-denominational religious organization that champions
religious freedom, social justice, and spiritual expression of all kinds. To further its mission,
ULC Monastery ordains those who feel called to be a minister of the Church, and many who
receive ordination choose to minister by officiating weddings.
3. Section 36-3-301, as amended by Public Chapter 415, authorizes religious leaders
to solemnize marriages in Tennessee, but only for favored religions that appoint their ministers
in a manner the State deems acceptable. The statute discriminates against ULC Monastery
ministers by design and restricts their protected speech without justification. As a result, Section
36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, unconstitutionally grants a preference to
certain religions, burdens ULC Monastery’s and its members’ free exercise of religion, and
violates the Church’s and its ministers’ freedom of speech.
Parties
4. ULC Monastery is a non-denominational religious organization and a Washington
non-profit corporation, with its headquarters in Seattle.
5. Rev. Erin Patterson is an individual who resides in Rutherford County, Tennessee.
6. Rev. Gabriel Biser is an individual who resides in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
7. Rev. James Welch is an individual who resides in Putnam County, Tennessee.
8. Wayne Nabors is the duly elected and serving County Clerk of Putnam County,
Tennessee, and is sued in his official capacity.
9. Lisa Duke Crowell is the duly elected and serving County Clerk of Rutherford
County, Tennessee, and is sued in her official capacity.
10. William K. Knowles is the duly elected and serving County Clerk of Hamilton
County, Tennessee, and is sued in his official capacity.
2
11. Elaine Anderson is the duly elected and serving County Clerk of Williamson
County, Tennessee, and is sued in her official capacity.
12. Herbert H. Slatery III is Attorney General of the State of Tennessee and is sued in
his official capacity.
Jurisdiction and Venue
13. This action arises under the United States Constitution as well as the Civil Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
14. This Court has original jurisdiction over these federal claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
15. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they form part of the same case or controversy.
16. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because events
giving rise to the claims occurred within this District and at least one defendant resides within
this District.
Factual Allegations
ULC Monastery’s Ministry and Outreach
17. ULC Monastery is a non-denominational church formed to advance religious faith
and freedom with the following core tenets: (1) a person should always strive to do that which is
right, and (2) all people are naturally endowed with the rights to practice their beliefs, regardless
of what those beliefs are, as long as they do not infringe the rights of others and are within the
law.
3
18. ULC Monastery registered as a Washington non-profit corporation in 2006 and is
headquartered in Seattle. ULC Monastery is a tax-exempt religious organization under 26 U.S.C.
§ 501(c)(3).
19. ULC Monastery’s ministry includes support of charitable organizations, advocacy
for marriage equality, and other social justice causes. The Church publishes a blog, which
includes sermons written by ULC Monastery ministers, and where many commenters participate
in discussions of religion, spirituality, and social justice.
20. ULC Monastery embraces the principle that those who feel so called can become
ministers through the Church. ULC Monastery ordains ministers over the internet for free, and it
sends credentials to ministers by mail. ULC Monastery expects its ministers to conduct
themselves according to the Church’s two core tenets, but ULC Monastery rejects the idea that a
church’s members should be made to obey the commands of any central leadership structure and
embraces the equality of all individuals.
21. Through its website, ULC Monastery offers its ministers resources such as
training and assistance in how to officiate weddings, deliver sermons, or found a church. ULC
Monastery also maintains a private social network online where its ministers can connect. ULC
Monastery strives to fulfill the spiritual needs of its global network of members and ministers
offering a wealth of information, a variety of services, and networking opportunities. The Church
views this communion and fellowship of its many scattered ministers as just as valid a form of
worship as the weekly services held in some of the world’s more traditional religious institutions.
4
Tennessee Ordination Statute
22. Tennessee regulates by statute who may solemnize marriages recognized by law.
Specifically, Section 36-3-301(a) of the Tennessee Code, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter
415 (with amendments underlined), provides:
(1) All regular ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, rabbis and other
spiritual leaders of every religious belief, more than eighteen (18) years of age,
having the care of souls, and all members of the county legislative bodies, county
mayors, judges, chancellors, former chancellors and former judges of this state,
former county executives or county mayors of this state, former members of
quarterly county courts or county commissions, the governor, the speaker of the
senate and former speakers of the senate, the speaker of the house of
representatives and former speakers of the house of representatives . . . and the
mayor of any municipality in the state may solemnize the rite of matrimony. . . .
(2) In order to solemnize the rite of matrimony, any such minister,

preacher, pastor, priest, rabbi or other spiritual leader must be ordained or
otherwise designated in conformity with the customs of a church, temple or other
religious group or organization; and such customs must provide for such
ordination or designation by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act. Persons
receiving online ordinations may not solemnize the rite of matrimony.
(Emphasis added). Thus, 2019 Public Chapter 415 added the last sentence of Section 36-
3-301(a)(2) prohibiting “[p]ersons receiving online ordinations” from “solemniz[ing] the
rite of matrimony.”
23. 2019 Public Chapter 415 will take effect July 1, 2019.
24. While the statute purports to authorize ministers of “every religious belief” to
perform marriages, the Tennessee legislature has twice acted to exclude disfavored religious
groups. First, in 1998, the legislature added language to exclude those whose religious customs
do not provide for ordination “by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act.” The legislature
acknowledged the intent of the statutory amendment was to target “the mail-order preachers,”
while allowing only ministers of more traditional religious groups to perform weddings. Second,
5
through its enactment of 2019 Public Chapter 415, the legislature acted to expressly prohibit
ministers “receiving online ordinations” from solemnizing a marriage.
25. Ministers who violate the statute face the threat of criminal liability. Tennessee
law requires that a person who solemnizes a marriage endorse the marriage license and return it
to the county clerk within three days, and a minister who “fails to make such return of the
licenses commits a Class C misdemeanor.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-303(a). Further, a person
who “[k]nowingly make[s] a false entry in . . . a government record”—such as potentially by
returning a marriage license the ministers knows is invalid—commits a Class A misdemeanor.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-504(a)(1).
26. Ministers of ULC Monastery who wish to perform weddings in Tennessee also
face discrimination and the threat that marriages they solemnize will be invalidated.
27. The result of the 1998 change to Section 36-3-301(a) and 2019 Public Chapter
415 is to draw a line between favored and disfavored religious groups. Favored religious groups
include traditional evangelical Christianity and Catholicism. Disfavored religious groups include
ULC Monastery and Islam, which Tennessee courts have recognized allows anyone with the
requisite knowledge of Islamic law to perform marriage ceremonies regardless of any official
status or “considered, deliberate, and responsible act.” See Aghili v. Saadatnejadi, 958 S.W.2d
784 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
28. The result of 2019 Public Chapter 415 is also to restrict the ability of ULC
Monastery and its ministers to exchange essential communications—those related to
ordination—via the most ubiquitous and convenient medium.
Rev. Erin Patterson
29. Rev. Erin Patterson was ordained as a ULC Monastery minister in 2015.
6
30. Rev. Patterson was drawn to ULC Monastery because she shares its core belief
that we are all children of the same universe. Rev. Patterson observed that many who shared
similar beliefs and did not belong to a brick-and-mortar church had trouble finding suitable
marriage officiants.
31. Rev. Patterson has solemnized five marriages as a ULC Monastery minister and
performed one vow renewal ceremony, all in Tennessee. She performs inclusive ceremonies
structured to accommodate the spiritual beliefs of couples and their families.
32. Rev. Patterson agreed to perform a marriage for a couple who resides in
Williamson County, Tennessee, on October 5, 2019. She arranged to meet with the bride June 9,
2019, to plan for the ceremony. However, after learning of 2019 Public Chapter 415, Rev.
Patterson cancelled the meeting and told the couple she could not perform the marriage. Another
couple requested that Rev. Patterson perform their marriage on October 13, 2019, in the
Nashville area, but Rev. Patterson again declined based on her concerns about 2019 Public
Chapter 415.
33. Rev. Patterson resides in Rutherford County, Tennessee. She has performed
multiple weddings in Rutherford County and plans to perform more. Prior to the enactment of
2019 Public Chapter 415, she had begun coordinating with local zoning authorities to make
changes to her approximately eight-acre property that would allow her to host weddings. 2019
Public Chapter 415 has caused Rev. Patterson to halt these plans.
Rev. Gabriel Biser
34. Rev. Gabriel Biser was ordained as a ULC Monastery minister in 2015.
7
35. Rev. Biser has solemnized four marriages as a ULC Monastery minister in
Tennessee. Two of the marriages Rev. Biser performed were for same-sex couples, and one was
for a man and woman who had both been divorced.
36. Rev. Biser embraces ULC Monastery’s values of equality and acceptance, and he
views ministry through solemnization of weddings as a personal calling. He performs weddings
for couples who struggle to find compatible ministers of other churches willing to perform their
weddings. He offers his services and ministers to those who do not feel accepted by most
Christian churches or by their state and local governments, whose officials are the only non-
religious persons authorized by law to perform marriages.
37. A same-sex couple recently asked Rev. Biser to perform their marriage in
Hamilton County, Tennessee, scheduled for August 2019. Rev. Biser agreed, but canceled after
learning of 2019 Public Chapter 415.
38. Rev. Biser resides in Hamilton County and intends to solemnize weddings there
in the future.
Rev. James Welch
39. Rev. James Welch was ordained as a ULC Monastery minister in 2018.
40. Rev. Welch has solemnized four marriages as a ULC Monastery minister in
Tennessee. As a minister, Rev. Welch furthers ULC Monastery’s values of acceptance and
openness, including by performing marriages for couples with varied spiritual or religious
backgrounds.
41. Rev. Welch has agreed to solemnize a wedding on July 6, 2019, for a couple who
resides in Putnam County, Tennessee. The approaching effective date of 2019 Public Chapter
415 has forced the couple to begin making alternative arrangements.
8
42. Rev. Welch resides in Putnam County and intends to solemnize weddings there in
the future.
COUNT I
Violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution
43. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein by reference all preceding paragraphs,
as if fully set forth herein.
44. The First Amendment—as incorporated and applied to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment—provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I.
45. The “clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious
denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244
(1982).
46. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, prefers certain
religions or religious denominations over others on its face by (a) authorizing marriage
solemnization only by leaders whose religion or denomination includes “customs” that provide
for ordination “by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act;” and (b) prohibiting those who
receive “online ordinations” from solemnizing marriages while granting that benefit to ministers
of religions who obtain ordinations in any other manner.
47. No compelling governmental interest supports this discrimination against certain
religions.
48. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, further contravenes
the Establishment Clause because it serves no secular purpose, lacks a primary effect other than
9
to advance or inhibit religion, and fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion.
See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971).
49. This violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution is actionable
as a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, entitling Plaintiffs to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT II
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution
51. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that states
may not “deny any person within [their] jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. The Equal Protection Clause protects against invidious discrimination against
similarly situated individuals or implicating fundamental rights, such as religion.
52. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, give the right to
officiate weddings to ministers ordained by various religious groups but denies that right to ULC
Monastery and its ministers.
53. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, reflects the state
legislature’s intentional and purposeful discrimination against religious groups or persons who
are not members of an established “church, temple or other religious group or organization” or
part of a religious organization that ordains ministers in the legislature’s preferred manner, in
violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
10
54. This violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is actionable
as a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, entitling Plaintiffs to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT III
Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment—provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free
exercise [of religion].” U.S. Const. amend. I.
57. Many of ULC Monastery’s ministers choose to minister by solemnizing
marriages, and Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, burdens ULC
Monastery’s and its members’ free exercise of religion by depriving them of the right to do so.
The restrictions imposed by Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, on who
may solemnize marriages are arbitrary and not supported by any rational basis.
58. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, is not neutral and not
of general application because the statute’s purpose is to confer a benefit on certain religious
groups and not others. As a result, Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, is
subject to the most rigorous of scrutiny. The burden imposed by the statute is not supported by
any compelling governmental interest.
59. This violation of the Free Exercise Clause to the U.S. Constitution is actionable as
a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, entitling Plaintiffs to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
11
COUNT IV
Violation of the Free Speech Clause of the U.S. Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment—provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom
of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I.
62. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, is a content-based
restriction on speech because it restricts speech facilitating ordination of ministers. The statute’s
exclusion of ministers who receive “online ordinations” from the privilege of solemnizing
marriages cannot be justified without reference to the content of the speech between ULC
63. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, restricts the ability of
ULC Monastery and its ministers to communicate via the Internet, which the Supreme Court has
recognized as a “vast democratic forum” and the “most important place[] . . . for the exchange of
views.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1736 (2017).
64. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, violates ULC
Monastery’s and its ministers’ freedom of speech as prohibited by the First Amendment.
65. This violation of the Free Speech Clause to the U.S. Constitution is actionable as
12
COUNT V
Violation of Article 1, Section 3, of the Tennessee Constitution
67. Article 1, Section 3, of the Tennessee Constitution states “[t]hat all men have a
natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own
conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of
worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any
case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever
be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.”
68. Ordination of ministers is central to ULC Monastery’s ministry and outreach, and
Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, burdens ULC Monastery’s and its
members’ free exercise of religion by depriving them of the right to solemnize marriages. The
restrictions imposed by Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, on who may
solemnize marriages are arbitrary and not supported by any rational basis.
69. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, is not neutral and not
of general application because the statute’s purpose is to confer a benefit on certain religious
groups and not others. As a result, Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, is
subject to the most rigorous of scrutiny, and is not supported by any compelling governmental
interest.
13
COUNT VI
71. The Tennessee Constitution provides: “The free communication of thoughts and
opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and
print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Tenn. Const. art. I, § 19.
72. “Article I, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution provides at least as much
protection of the freedom[] of speech . . . as the First Amendment. Seaton v. TripAdvisor LLC,
728 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Doe v. Doe, 127 S.W.3d 728, 732 (Tenn. 2004)).
73. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, is a content-based
restriction on speech because it restricts speech facilitating ordination of ministers. The statute’s
exclusion of ministers who receive “online ordinations” from the privilege of solemnizing
marriages cannot be justified without reference to the content of the speech between ULC
74. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, restricts the ability of
ULC Monastery and its ministers to communicate via the Internet, which the Supreme Court has
recognized as a “vast democratic forum” and the “most important place[] . . . for the exchange of
views.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1736 (2017).
75. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, violates ULC
Monastery’s and its ministers’ freedom of speech as prohibited by the Article I, Section 19 of the
Tennessee Constitution.
14
COUNT VII
Violation of Due Process Cause of the U.S. Constitution
77. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that states may
not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1.
78. The Due Process Clause protects against arbitrary government conduct and
prevents states from establishing an “irrefutable assumption” that “operates to deny a fair
opportunity to rebut it.” Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 446 (1973).
79. The Due Process Clause also requires that “regulated parties should know what is
required of them so they may act accordingly.” F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S.
239, 253 (2012).
80. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, impermissibly denies
ULC Monastery ministers any fair opportunity to rebut the statute’s presumption that ministers
receiving “online ordinations” or otherwise not ordained in the statute’s specified manner are not
qualified to solemnize marriages in Tennessee.
81. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, fails to inform
regulated parties as to what is required of them through use of the undefined and vague terms
“considered, deliberate, responsible act” and “online ordinations.”
82. This violation of the Due Process Clause to the U.S. Constitution is actionable as
15
COUNT VIII
Violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
84. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” U.S. Cons. art.
VI, cl. 3.
85. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, creates a position of
public trust in those who are authorized to solemnize marriages, but requires that those who
solemnize marriages adhere to certain religious traditions and not others. The result is to impose
an unconstitutional religious test on ULC Monastery ministers.
86. This violation of Article VI to the U.S. Constitution is actionable as a violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983, entitling Plaintiffs to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages,
costs, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT IX
88. Article 1, Section 4 of the Tennessee Constitution provides that “no political or
religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State,
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.”
89. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, creates a position of
public trust in those who are authorized to solemnize marriages, but requires that those who
16
solemnize marriages adhere to certain religious traditions and not others. The result is to impose
a religious test on ULC Monastery ministers in violation of the Tennessee Constitution.
COUNT X
Violation of the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine
91. Under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, “a state actor cannot
constitutionally condition the receipt of a benefit . . . on an agreement to refrain from exercising
one’s constitutional rights.” G&V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071,
1077 (6th Cir. 1994).
92. Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, grants the authority to
solemnize marriages to a limited number of qualified individuals yet denies that authority to
those who exercise their religion in a manner protected by the First Amendment but disapproved
of by the State. Ministers of ULC Monastery and couples who wish to be married by ULC
Monastery ministers must refrain from exercising their constitutional rights to obtain the benefit
of authorization to solemnize marriages.
93. This violation of unconstitutional conditions doctrine is actionable as a violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, entitling Plaintiffs to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages,
costs, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
ULC Monastery respectfully requests that the Court grant the following relief:
a. A judgment declaring that Section 36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, is
unconstitutional under the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions, facially and as-applied to
ULC Monastery;
b. A temporary restraining order, later to be made a permanent injunction, prohibiting
Defendants from enforcing the ordination requirements of Section 36-3-301, as amended
by 2019 Public Chapter 415, to the extent those requirements prevent ULC Monastery
ministers from solemnizing marriages in Tennessee or invalidate marriages solemnized
by ULC Monastery ministers in Tennessee;
c. A judgment awarding ULC Monastery its costs and attorneys’ fees; and
d. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
18
Respectfully submitted,
ADAMS AND REESE LLP
By: /s/ Rocklan W. King III

Rocklan W. King III (BPR No 030643)
424 Church Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 259-1450
Fax: (615) 259-1470
rocky.king@arlaw.com
Lucian T. Pera (BPR No. 11641)

Crescent Center
6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 700
Memphis, TN 38119
Phone: (901) 524-5278
Fax: (901) 524-5378
lucian.pera@arlaw.com
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
Bruce E.H. Johnson (pro hac vice pending)

(WSBA No. 7667)
Ambika K. Doran (pro hac vice pending)
(WSBA No. 38237)
Robert E. Miller (pro hac vice pending)
(WSBA No. 46507)
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 622-3150
Fax: (206) 757-7700
brucejohnson@dwt.com
ambikadoran@dwt.com
robertmiller@dwt.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19
JS 44 (Rev. 07/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse, a Washington non-profit Wayne Nabors, in his official capacity as County Clerk of Putnam Co.,
corporation, Erin Patterson, an individual, Gabriel Biser, an individual, Lisa Duke Crowell, in her official capacity as County Clerk of
and James Welch, an individual Rutherford Co., William K. Knowles, et. al.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff King Co., WA County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Putnam Co., TN
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Rocklan W. King III, Adams and Reese, 424 Church Street
Suite 2700, Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 259-1450
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Violation of civil rights.
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
06/21/2019 /s/ Rocklan W. King III
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # Case 2:19-cv-00049 Document

AMOUNT 1-1 Filed 06/21/19
APPLYING IFP JUDGEPage 1 of 1 PageID #: 20
MAG. JUDGE

Ordaining Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ordaining Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH )

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Case 2:19-cv-00049 Document 1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

receive ordination choose to minister by officiating weddings.

3. Section 36-3-301, as amended by Public Chapter 415, authorizes religious leaders

36-3-301, as amended by 2019 Public Chapter 415, unconstitutionally grants a preference to

violates the Church’s and its ministers’ freedom of speech.

4. ULC Monastery is a non-denominational religious organization and a Washington

non-profit corporation, with its headquarters in Seattle.

5. Rev. Erin Patterson is an individual who resides in Rutherford County, Tennessee.

6. Rev. Gabriel Biser is an individual who resides in Hamilton County, Tennessee.

7. Rev. James Welch is an individual who resides in Putnam County, Tennessee.

Tennessee, and is sued in his official capacity.

County, Tennessee, and is sued in her official capacity.

County, Tennessee, and is sued in his official capacity.

County, Tennessee, and is sued in her official capacity.

his official capacity.

Jurisdiction and Venue

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

ULC Monastery’s Ministry and Outreach

17. ULC Monastery is a non-denominational church formed to advance religious faith

headquartered in Seattle. ULC Monastery is a tax-exempt religious organization under 26 U.S.C.

19. ULC Monastery’s ministry includes support of charitable organizations, advocacy

in discussions of religion, spirituality, and social justice.

embraces the equality of all individuals.

415 (with amendments underlined), provides:

(2) In order to solemnize the rite of matrimony, any such minister,

3-301(a)(2) prohibiting “[p]ersons receiving online ordinations” from “solemniz[ing] the

ministers “receiving online ordinations” from solemnizing a marriage.

who “[k]nowingly make[s] a false entry in . . . a government record”—such as potentially by

returning a marriage license the ministers knows is invalid—commits a Class A misdemeanor.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-504(a)(1).

784 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Monastery and its ministers to exchange essential communications—those related to

ordination—via the most ubiquitous and convenient medium.

Rev. Erin Patterson

structured to accommodate the spiritual beliefs of couples and their families.

Rev. Gabriel Biser

for a man and woman who had both been divorced.

views ministry through solemnization of weddings as a personal calling. He performs weddings

religious persons authorized by law to perform marriages.

learning of 2019 Public Chapter 415.

Rev. James Welch

415 has forced the couple to begin making alternative arrangements.

Violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution

as if fully set forth herein.

Fourteenth Amendment—provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I.

of religions who obtain ordinations in any other manner.

47. No compelling governmental interest supports this discrimination against certain

See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971).

as damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution

as if fully set forth herein.

similarly situated individuals or implicating fundamental rights, such as religion.

Monastery and its ministers.

violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

as damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution

as if fully set forth herein.