CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia on Monday ruled state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey cannot sue a religious institution on allegations of violating the state’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act.
The court’s ruling is related to allegations that the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston knowingly employed sexual abusers and failed to protect children by not disclosing credible accusations, which Morrisey contended violated state code.
Wood County Circuit Judge J.D. Beane previously issued a stay on his dismissal ruling because of questions about the Consumer Credit and Protection Act as well as the relationship between the church and state.
The lawsuit followed allegations against former Bishop Michael Bransfield of financial improprieties and sexual harassment.
Morrisey alleged because the diocese provides education to students through schools, the body’s alleged actions were deceptive to consumers. Justice Beth Walker, writing the majority opinion of the court, said there are issues when applying the Consumer Credit and Protection Act to religious institutions.
“The Attorney General argues that he attempts only to regulate the relationship between the church schools and the consumers who buy their educational services. That commercial relationship, he suggests, cannot be one ‘relating to education’; otherwise, he argues, church schools are exempt from nearly every provision of law that could conceivably apply to them — something the Legislature could not have intended,” she wrote.
“The Attorney General’s argument misses this key point: while the deceptive practices provisions may regulate the commercial relationship between a church school and consumers, its enforcement depends on the assessment of the qualities of the education actually supplied by the church school.”
Walker also noted concerns with regulating a church’s services under state law.
“Consider a church-sponsored fee-based trip: could the Legislature have intended the Attorney General to regulate a religious institution’s representations about the trip but not representations made by its affiliated church school?” she said. “That is absurd.”
Justice Margaret Workman issued a dissenting opinion, arguing the case is solely about a party being honest with its promised services.
“The fundamental question involves matters of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in advertising or selling and in advertising based on false promises. That is all. Nothing else is at issue,” she said. “This case has absolutely nothing to do with the free exercise or expression of religious thought and nothing to do with regulating religious institutions in the sense of excessive State entanglement.”