State Supreme Court hears argument over church-autonomy shield in Garner defamation suit

The state Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the Southern Baptist Convention’s internal communications are immune from defamation suits under the First Amendment, in a case brought by Preston Garner alleging the convention labeled him an abuser.

At argument, Daniel Blomberg, counsel for the appellants Southern Baptist Convention et al., told the court that "the First Amendment protects the SBC's internal religious speech here," urging early resolution of church-autonomy defenses and citing the McRaney decision as procedural support. Blomberg argued internal governance and doctrinal questions are intertwined and that forcing churches into discovery would cause irreparable harm to ecclesiastical decisionmaking.

Bryce McKenzie, counsel for Garner, described the human consequences he says followed a 2023 communication and accompanying verbal statements: Garner lost jobs, sought counseling and suffered lasting reputational harm after more than 20 years in ministry. "He was compelled to file this defamation claim," McKenzie said, and he urged the court to uphold the Court of Appeals’ neutral-principles approach that allows a tort defamation claim to proceed without adjudicating church doctrine.

The state's lawyer, Matt Rice, told the court his office views church autonomy as an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional bar, but one that functions as an immunity and thus "must be resolved at the outset of the case." He urged the court to consider procedural mechanisms, including interlocutory review in appropriate circumstances, to protect religious institutions from burdensome litigation.

Justices pressed both sides on how to draw workable lines. Several asked whether treating certain denominations differently — for example, hierarchical Catholic structures versus cooperative Baptist relationships — would raise Establishment Clause concerns. Counsel for the SBC said distinctions reflect how organizations choose to structure themselves and that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions require courts to give greater protection to religious governance. Garner’s counsel emphasized factual differences: the SBC is not Garrett’s employer, the communication was forwarded to the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board, and a secular contractor (Guidepost Solutions) was involved in gathering information.

Counsel debated whether the case should be treated as a jurisdictional (threshold) determination that would make the claim immediately appealable or as an affirmative defense requiring development of the record. Blomberg warned that applying a neutral-principles analysis to defamation claims risks chilling the exercise of religious governance, citing McRaney and other state-court decisions. McKenzie said the record alleged a straightforward tort that can be evaluated by ordinary defamation law without delving into religious doctrine.

The court concluded oral argument and adjourned without issuing a ruling. The case will await the court’s written decision or further order clarifying whether and how church-autonomy defenses must be resolved before discovery proceeds.