Bixler vs The Church of Scientology

 Bad Faith:

 The legal battle known as Superior Court v. Bixler commenced when a collective of women filed a lawsuit against the Church of Scientology in 2019. These women, who were once members of the Church, came forward to the Los Angeles Police Department during the rise of the #MeToo movement, revealing that they had experienced sexual assault at the hands of Danny Masterson, an actor and fellow Scientologist. However, their courage to speak out was met with a distressing series of retaliatory actions. The women endured a relentless onslaught of harassment and abuse, which included invasive surveillance, hacking attempts, wiretapping, property damage, attempted arson, menacing phone calls, the tragic killing of their beloved pets, and numerous other distressing incidents. 

 Chrissie Carnell Bixler, the primary plaintiff, and two other women involved in the legal action asserted that the church specifically singled them out as a form of retribution for publicly disclosing their accusations against Masterson. They pointed out previous incidents where members of the Scientology community had subjected their perceived adversaries and critics to harassment, citing the church's "Fair Game" policy as the basis for such actions. However, in official court documents, the church refuted these allegations and maintained that L. Ron Hubbard, the esteemed founder of the movement, had actually curtailed the implementation of Fair Game back in 1968, thereby denying any wrongdoing. 

 To end the legal action, the church utilized legal agreements that the plaintiffs had signed as members. These agreements stipulated that instead of resorting to the civil legal system, the plaintiffs were obligated to engage in religious arbitration. Although the language in the contracts may differ slightly, they both contain two crucial provisions at the core of the current dispute. Firstly, the plaintiffs willingly relinquished their right to file a lawsuit or seek legal remedies against the Church of Scientology for an indefinite period of time. While one of the plaintiffs signed an earlier version of this waiver, which may have been more limited in scope, the other three plaintiffs signed later versions that encompass not only the church itself but also its affiliated organizations and employees. Secondly, the plaintiffs agreed that the arbitrators overseeing the process must be practicing Scientologists with favorable standing within the Mother Church. This particular provision raises concerns about the impartiality of the arbitration process itself. 

 In response, the plaintiffs requested the court to dismiss the contracts. However, a judge in California decided to uphold the arbitration agreements, but the California Court of Appeals overturned this ruling in January. The appeals court determined that enforcing the contract would infringe upon the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to freely change their religious beliefs. The court expressed that Scientology implies that joining their religion or receiving a religious service requires a perpetual submission to a religious forum, which essentially waives the petitioners' constitutional right to disengage from the faith. The court emphasized that the Constitution prohibits such an exorbitant price. 

The Church of Scientology recently sought relief from the U.S. Supreme Court after the California Supreme Court rejected their appeal. They emphasized that the state should not have the power to regulate the relationship between a church and its members, as it goes against the principles of religious freedom protected by the First Amendment. 

Interestingly, Scientology took a contradictory stance by presenting their agreements as both civil contracts and sacred commitments. While they wanted the courts to enforce these agreements like any other legal contract, they also argued that these agreements should be shielded from judicial examination due to their spiritual nature and the protections granted by the First Amendment.