LDS Church's Controversial "No Legal Duty" Abuse Defense Faces Federal Showdown in July

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is heading to federal court this summer to defend a legal position that has stunned child advocates and survivors alike: the assertion that the institution had “no legal duty” to intervene and protect a child from sexual abuse.

A scheduling order filed on May 15, set oral arguments for July 1 at 10:00 AM before U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane in Eugene, Oregon.

The highly anticipated hearing will determine the immediate future of the lawsuit, addressing the LDS Church’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings alongside the plaintiff’s Corrected Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.

In stark contrast to the institution’s public emphasis on family safety and its own internal anti-abuse policies, the LDS Church’s legal team is advancing a sweeping defense against allegations that its clergy enabled a teenage girl to be isolated with her abusive adoptive father.

The LDS Church’s April brief leans heavily on legal technicalities and constitutional shields. Attorneys for the institution argue that because the abuse occurred in the victim’s home, rather than at a LDS Church activity, the LDS Church is legally absolved of responsibility.

Furthermore, they characterize a Washington bishop’s alleged instruction to the victim’s mother to keep quiet about the abuse as constitutionally protected “bad advice.”

The defense also argues that Oregon’s mandatory clergy reporting laws are strictly criminal—meaning they fail to create any civil liability for the Church’s alleged failure to report the perpetrator to the police.

The plaintiff’s legal team forcefully dismantled those claims in late April, arguing that the Church has mischaracterized previous state rulings and that the bishop’s active discouragement of reporting created a new risk of harm, stripping the actions of any First Amendment protection.

Perhaps most legally perilous for the LDS Church’s defense is the plaintiff’s revelation regarding the direct involvement of the institution’s highest echelons.

While the LDS Church claims it had no duty to act, Salt Lake City headquarters allegedly placed a restrictive “annotation” on the abuser’s membership record and specifically warned an Oregon bishop about the dangerous living situation.

Plaintiff attorneys argue this proves the LDS Church voluntarily assumed a duty to protect the girl—a duty they allegedly abandoned by delaying discipline, failing to notify authorities, and leaving the teenager completely unsupported.

The impending July 1 showdown in Eugene Courtroom 2 will force the LDS Church to defend these controversial legal maneuvers in open court.

Judge McShane’s decision on the pending motions will dictate whether the plaintiff can proceed with her amended complaint, or if the LDS Church’s “no duty” defense will successfully shield it from accountability.