Federal Hearing on LDS Church "No Legal Duty" Defense Postponed to August
A highly anticipated federal court hearing regarding a child sexual abuse lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been postponed until late summer.
Originally scheduled for July 1, oral arguments will now take place on Aug. 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
According to a scheduling order entered into the court docket on Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane reset the hearing date at the request of the parties involved.
The upcoming hearing is expected to determine the immediate trajectory of the litigation, as the court is set to address the church’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings alongside the plaintiff’s Corrected Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
The lawsuit centers on civil allegations that church clergy enabled a teenage girl to remain isolated with her abusive adoptive father.
The case has drawn public scrutiny from child advocates due to the church’s defense strategy, which asserts that the institution had “no legal duty” to intervene and protect the child.
In previous court filings, attorneys for the LDS Church argued that the institution is absolved of civil responsibility because the alleged abuse occurred in the victim’s home rather than at an official church-sponsored activity.
Furthermore, the defense contends that an alleged instruction from a Washington bishop telling the victim’s mother to keep quiet about the abuse constitutes constitutionally protected “bad advice.”
The church’s legal team also maintains that Oregon’s mandatory clergy reporting laws are strictly criminal in nature and do not establish a basis for civil liability regarding an alleged failure to report to law enforcement.
The plaintiff’s legal team forcefully disputes these claims, arguing that the church has mischaracterized state rulings.
They contend that the bishop’s alleged active discouragement of reporting created a new risk of harm, which they argue strips the institution’s actions of any First Amendment protections.
The plaintiff’s attorneys point to the alleged involvement of the church’s headquarters in Salt Lake City. According to court filings, church leadership allegedly placed a restrictive “annotation” on the accused abuser’s membership record and warned a local Oregon bishop about the dangerous living situation.
The plaintiff argues this demonstrates that the church voluntarily assumed a duty to protect the teenager—a duty the lawsuit claims was abandoned when the church allegedly delayed discipline, failed to notify authorities, and left the victim completely unsupported.
The rescheduled Aug. 5 showdown will require both sides to defend their legal positions in open court.
Judge McShane’s subsequent rulings on the pending motions will dictate whether the plaintiff can proceed with the amended complaint or if the church’s “no duty” defense will succeed in dismissing the civil claims against the institution.