Tithing Suit Heads to Supreme Court
Plaintiffs in LDS church tithing lawsuit intend to appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
A group of former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints (LDS Church) who previously sued the church over its handling of tithing donations is now signaling its intention to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit, initially filed in federal court, claimed that the church misused or misrepresented how it invested tithing funds given by members.
The plaintiffs alleged that instead of immediately using tithes for charitable or religious purposes as they believed, the church’s investment arm — Ensign Peak Advisors — held and invested large sums (reportedly billions) while providing limited disclosure to members or donors. For example, previous lawsuits referenced holdings of more than $100 billion by Ensign Peak over recent years.
In April 2025, a federal judge dismissed one such lawsuit with prejudice, citing the three-year statute of limitations under Utah’s fraud law and concluding that the plaintiffs failed to show the necessary elements of fraud. The 10th Circuit later also upheld rulings in similar cases, reinforcing the barrier for such suits.
Despite these setbacks, the newly reported filing indicates that the plaintiffs still believe a legal avenue remains. They intend to bring the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts mis-interpreted protections and the standards for donor rights, especially when religious institutions hold enormous investment assets. The appeal signals a broader attempt to challenge how non-profit religious organizations manage donor funds and whether members have rights to oversight or disclosure.
The church maintains that tithing is a matter of faith, that funds are managed in line with its religious mission, and that investment decisions fall under ecclesiastical discretion, which is protected by the First Amendment and by the ministerial exception in many cases. Past actions by regulators, such as the SEC’s settlement with Ensign Peak, have addressed disclosure issues, though not donor-level oversight.
As the plaintiffs prepare for a possible Supreme Court petition, the case draws attention not just within the LDS Church but across many faith-based organizations with large endowments and tithing/donation models. Questions arise: Do donors have enforceable rights to know how funds are invested? When does religious discretion end and accountability begin?
Why It Matters
-
Donor rights vs. religious autonomy — The case tests the balance between a religious organization’s control over its finances and the rights of members who contribute believing their funds will be used in specific ways.
-
Large-scale faith-institution transparency — With the LDS Church’s holdings measured in the tens of billions, how funds are managed may set precedent for other large religious institutions.
-
Intersection of fraud law and religion — Courts will consider whether fraud or misuse claims against religious institutions must meet special standards given the First Amendment protections.
-
Potential change to tithing norms — A successful appeal could influence how tithing and donation structures are handled, disclosed and audited inside faith communities.
-
Broader nonprofit sector impact — Because many religious and non-profit entities invest donations, this case may ripple across the charitable and faith sectors on oversight expectations.
Key Legal Outcome
-
Lower-court dismissal upheld — The lawsuit was dismissed at the federal district level and affirmed by appellate court, largely because the plaintiffs missed the statute of limitations and failed to show actionable fraud.
-
Plaintiffs now seeking Supreme Court review — The recent filing indicates the plaintiffs intend to request certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to overturn or clarify lower-court rulings.
-
Religious-organization protections asserted — The church’s defense continues to be grounded in religious-freedom safeguards, including control over internal finances and ministerial discretion.
-
No immediate change in oversight yet — As of now, no independent monitor or new oversight mechanism has been imposed on the church’s investment practices.
-
Future legal standard still uncertain — How donor claims against religious institutions should be treated remains unsettled; the Supreme Court’s decision (if taken) may define thresholds for first-amendment-sensitive financial claims.
