In Re William W. Gothard, Jr., and Institute in Basic Life Principles, Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 24-0236
══════════

In re William W. Gothard, Jr., and Institute in Basic Life
Principles, Inc.,
Relators

═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
═══════════════════════════════════════

CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKLOCK, joined by Justice Devine and
Justice Sullivan, dissenting from the denial of the petition for writ of
mandamus.

“[C]ourts are prohibited from risking judicial entanglement with
ecclesiastical matters . . . if the substance and nature of the plaintiff’s
claims are inextricably intertwined with matters of doctrine or church
governance . . . .” In re Lubbock, 624 S.W.3d 506, 514 (Tex. 2021)
(emphasis added). We should grant this petition to ensure that this
litigation, if it proceeds, is not “inextricably intertwined with matters of
doctrine.” Id. As currently pleaded, I have little doubt that it will be.
In addition to validly seeking justice for victims of sexual assault,
the plaintiffs’ petition invalidly seeks to put on trial certain religious
teachings about sex and family life, which the plaintiffs allege facilitated
and encouraged their abuse. That must never happen in a Texas court.
“Both the Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution compel
judges to acknowledge that there are places where our imperfect judicial
system does not belong, places where earthly judges have no power.” Id.
at 520 (Blacklock, J., concurring). Because this petition asks the courts
to tread on just such sacred ground, it should be dismissed, and the
plaintiffs should be required to replead their case, if possible, in a way
that does not ask a judge or a jury to pass judgment on the propriety or
advisability of any defendant’s interpretation of the Bible.
***
The plaintiffs are young women who were sexually abused by
their immediate family members. Texas courts can and should impose
liability on the perpetrators of such terrible crimes. In addition to suing
their abusers, however, the plaintiffs sued a once-prominent Christian
religious ministry, the Institute in Basic Life Principles, in which their
family participated. They also sued the ministry’s leader, Bill Gothard.
The petition alleges that Gothard and IBLP were involved in a
conspiracy to abuse the plaintiffs. Yet the live petition contains no
allegation that Gothard or any high-ranking member of IBLP had any
knowledge of or interaction with the plaintiffs’ family—much less any
knowledge of or interaction with the abuse that took place within the
family. Instead, the petition’s primary allegation connecting Gothard
and his ministry to the awful crimes the plaintiffs suffered is that
Gothard’s “teachings on patriarchal authority and the corresponding
duty of loyalty owed by children is intended to create and has created
ideal victims for sexual assault.” Plaintiffs’ First Am. Pet. at 9, ¶ 37.
As characterized in the petition, Gothard’s teachings are what
some might call “fundamentalist.” They surely strike many modern ears

2
as extreme, but for most of our history, they were far closer to the
mainstream of American religious life than they are today. They are
arguably grounded in various Biblical passages, although whether they
correctly interpret those passages is obviously not a matter for judicial
inquiry. “[T]he First Amendment prohibits courts from determining the
veracity of religious tenets.” Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672, 678
(Tex. 1996).
The First Amendment—and, separately, the Texas
Constitution—also prohibit putting religious adherents on trial for the
content of their beliefs. We do not “conduct[] ‘heresy trials.’” Id. “Courts
are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation,” and “the guarantee of free
exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members
of a religious sect.” Thomas v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div., 450 U.S.
707, 715–16 (1981); see also United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 257
(1982) (“[C]ourts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.”); Pleasant
Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 264 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tex. 2008) (“The
Free Exercise Clause prohibits courts from deciding issues of religious
doctrine.”).
Despite the well-settled guardrails against judicial inquiry into
questions of scriptural interpretation, a major theme throughout the
plaintiffs’ petition is that the content of Gothard’s interpretation of the
Bible with regard to sexuality and family life created an environment
conducive to sexual assault—and that Gothard and his ministry
therefore share legal responsibility for sexual assaults of which they had
no knowledge. The petition contends that “[a]uthority, especially
patriarchal authority, is at the pinnacle of all IBLP doctrine and is one

3
of the primary bases for IBLP culture,” which the petition claims is a
cult. Pet. at 6, 7, ¶¶ 24, 29. This conception of fatherly authority
identifies husbands and fathers as the “sole, absolute authority with
complete control over wives and children,” whereas women and children
have the corollary duty to unquestioningly obey their husbands and
fathers. Id. at 6, ¶¶ 24–25. The petition argues that these teachings
were a key component of the indoctrination that was designed to create
“readily available, compliant victims of sexual assault.” Id. at 7, ¶ 28.
This basic allegation is repeated in multiple ways throughout the
petition:
• “IBLP’s doctrines, particularly those on authority,
sexuality, and suffering, became a blueprint for fathers and
older brothers to sexually abuse their daughters and
younger sisters.” Id. at 12, ¶ 48.
• “IBLP’s teachings on human sexuality are neither biblical
nor consistent with orthodox Christian doctrine, yet they
are taught as the Word of God mediated through Gothard.”
Id. at 9, ¶ 38.
• “Through pre-courtship and courtship, IBLP intentionally
and effectively sexualizes the father-daughter relationship.”
Id. at 11, ¶ 46.
• “Through [IBLP’s homeschooling curriculum], Gothard and
IBLP indoctrinated children and [the curriculum] was a
central means by which Gothard and IBLP: (a) groomed
girls and young women to be readily available, compliant
victims of sexual assault by male IBLP authorities,
including the fathers and brothers of the victims, and
(b) planned and facilitated the cover-up of these crimes and
torts.” Id. at 7, ¶ 28.
• “IBLP’s doctrine on how women dress is a part of its larger
doctrine that most women who are sexually assaulted are
at least as guilty as their assailant.” Id. at 10, ¶ 41.

4
• “IBLP followers are indoctrinated to believe both that: (a) a
girl or young woman must never question anything that her
father does to her, including invasions of her body; and (b) if
a girl or young woman fails adequately to cry out when
sexually assaulted, she is equally responsible with the
attacker for the assault.” Id. at 10, ¶ 42.
• “IBLP taught that law enforcement, especially agencies
such as Texas Child Protective Services, were agents of
Satan and that it was therefore a moral imperative to lie to
law enforcement about allegations of abuse.” Id. at 12–13,
¶ 50.
• “A.L.E.R.T. was one of the primary means by which
Gothard and IBLP reinforced . . . principles of hierarchy,
control, domination, and submission.” Id. at 13, ¶ 52.

• “The A.L.E.R.T. program taught that Christian masculinity
was physical, overpowering, and aggressive. Thus, in the
name of promoting ‘manliness,’ through A.L.E.R.T., IBLP
taught and promoted the physical, mental, and emotional
subjugation of women and girls. While IBLP was training
girls to be victims, it was also training boys to be attackers.”
Id. at 14, ¶ 55.
These and other allegations in the petition boil down to the claim
that the content of Gothard’s teachings about sex and family are
evidence that Gothard and his ministry wanted young women like the
plaintiffs to be abused. That allegation, if taken seriously, would
impugn a material percentage of American religious leaders over the
course of our history. Such an allegation cannot possibly be a basis for
discovery and trial in a Texas courtroom.
Nor does the petition’s characterization of Gothard’s promotion of
sexual abuse as “active” or “deliberate” or “intentional” change the basic
nature of the allegation—which is that the content of his religious
teachings is dangerous to young women. Other than Gothard’s

5
admittedly active and intentional propagation of controversial religious
teachings, there are no facts alleged connecting Gothard or his
organization to the crimes against these plaintiffs. The alleged
connection is that Gothard preached a dangerous version of
traditionalist Christianity to this family, which caused the assaults
suffered by the plaintiffs to play out as they did. The constitutional
problem with allowing any such allegation to proceed to further
litigation should be obvious. 1
I would grant the petition for writ of mandamus and require
repleading of the petition to avoid the impermissible entanglement with
religious questions that will inevitably attend further litigation
conducted on the basis of this petition. I therefore respectfully dissent
from the Court’s denial of the petition, which should not be understood
by the courts below as a license to ignore the severe constitutional
implications of this lawsuit.

James D. Blacklock
Chief Justice

1 An additional problem for the petition is that “[a]n actionable civil

conspiracy requires specific intent to agree to accomplish an unlawful purpose
or a lawful purpose by unlawful means.” ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v.
Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 881 (Tex. 2010). The plaintiffs’ family was one of
many thousands who participated in the IBLP ministry, and there is no
allegation that Gothard or officials in his organization had any knowledge of
or directed any particular attention to this family. Without additional
allegations that Gothard or IBLP formed a “specific intent” to harm these
plaintiffs, I doubt the petition states a cognizable conspiracy claim. Had the
Court granted the petition, this question could have been explored as well.

6
OPINION FILED: June 27, 2025

7