No. 11-1139 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RONALD S. GAUSS ET AL., Petitioners, v. THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF RESPONDENTS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH ET AL. ALAN ROBERT BAKER MARY E. KOSTEL Counsel of Record Counsel of Record MICHELLE M. SEERY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH BAKER O’SULLIVAN & C/O GOODWIN PROCTER LLP BLISS, P.C. 901 New York Ave., N.W. 100 Great Meadow Road Washington, D.C. 20001 Suite 100 (202) 346-4184 Wethersfield, CT 06109
[email protected] (860) 258-1993
[email protected] DAVID BOOTH BEERS GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Counsel for The 901 New York Ave., N.W. Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. 20001 the Diocese of (202) 346-4000 Connecticut, the Rev. Canon David Cannon, Counsel for The Episcopal and Bishop Seabury Church Church May 18, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................... iv INTRODUCTION..................................................... 1 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE .............. 2 1. The Episcopal Church Adopts Rules that Are Binding on Its Local Churches............... 2 2. The Local Church Here Promised To Obey The Episcopal Church’s Rules. ............ 3 3. The Episcopal Church’s Rules Require That Local Church Property Be Held in Trust for the General Church. ...................... 4 4. The Local Church Has Consistently Complied with The Episcopal Church’s Property Rules. .............................................. 5 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION......... 6 I. The Decision Below Rests on Adequate and Independent State Law Grounds. ................... 6 A. The Connecticut court based its decision on undisputed facts showing the local church’s promise to be bound by the General Church’s rules and its consistent compliance with those rules.........................