Constitutional Law

S.D. high court refuses to decide leadership of Hutterite colony

By By The Associated Press

PIERRE, S.D. ? The state court system cannot determine which of two factions controls a Hutterite colony in northeast South Dakota because the dispute involves constitutionally protected issues of religious freedom, the South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled.

The Supreme Court's ruling, dated Nov. 17, came the same day that a lower court judge ordered that the corporation governing the Hutterville Colony near Stratford be dissolved, its assets be sold and the proceeds distributed to members. The high court's ruling in Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Waldner dealt with an earlier phase of the case.

Jim McMahon, a Sioux Falls lawyer representing one of the factions, said the Supreme Court's decision likely would not affect Circuit Judge Jack Von Wald's decision to dissolve the colony's corporation because Von Wald avoided religious issues in his handling of the case.

Disputing groups in the Hutterville Colony near Stratford still could reconcile and resolve the dispute, the Aberdeen American News reported. If the two sides can't compromise, they will agree on a person, known as a receiver, to handle the judge's order on assets.

The Hutterian Church was founded in the 1500s in Germany, and members relocated in the 1870s to the U.S. Midwest and Canada, according to court documents. Church members live a communal, farming life based on the New Testament, with all property owned by the colony.

The dispute revolves around which branch of the Hutterian religion the Hutterville Colony should follow. Members have divided into two groups ? supporters of Johnny Wipf and backers of George Waldner Sr. Both groups claim to be the colony's rightful leaders.

Wipf argues that he is the colony's president as the result of an election and that his supporters are the true directors of the colony. Waldner and his supporters say they are the leaders because Wipf and his backers were removed from power after they were excommunicated from the church.

Von Wald ruled earlier he could not decide issues relating to the purported excommunication or an election of colony corporation officers because he had no legal authority over what had become a religious dispute.

In last week's trial, Von Wald declined to rule on the religious aspects of the case, but he ruled that the colony's directors were deadlocked and there was a nearly even split between colony members who support Wipf and those who support Waldner. He ordered that the colony's corporation be dissolved and its assets sold and distributed to colony members.

Meanwhile, Von Wald's earlier refusal to decide which side controlled the colony had been appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the decision dated Nov. 17, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Von Wald's decision that he had no authority to decide a contested election of colony officers or the excommunication of leaders of one faction.

A court determination of the colony's governance would require a determination of church membership, but courts cannot get involved in issues involving religious freedom, the high court said.

"Such matters of membership are shielded from judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment," Justice Steven Zinter wrote for the court.

McMahon, who represents Wipf's side, asked Von Wald during closing arguments on Nov. 17 to dissolve the colony's corporation, which includes farming and other operations.

McMahon said on Nov. 18 that he believed the Supreme Court ruling would not affect Von Wald's decision to dissolve the colony corporation because the judge noted that his decision did not deal with religious issues.

"I really just don't think this changes anything," McMahon said of the Supreme Court ruling.

A lawyer for Waldner's side in the dispute did not return a phone call seeking comment in time for this story.

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on November 21, 2010 (boomark / email).