Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity

Did You Know?

• The case had been dismissed by San Francisco Superior Court judge Stuart Pollack and by a three-judge appeals court before reaching the California Supreme Court.
• The plaintiffs connected coercive persuasion to the legal concept of undue influence.

Court ruling

The California Supreme Court held that religious organizations may be sued for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress when they use deception to expose recruitment candidates to brainwashing techniques without their knowledge. The court found that the Unification Church members who recruited Molko had lied about any religious connection and, after gaining his trust, brainwashed him. Justice Stanley Mosk wrote that the state's interest in protecting against fraudulent induction into coercive persuasion outweighed any burden on free exercise of religion, as such exposure could cause serious psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide. The court also noted that the plaintiffs, while church members, were incapable of exercising their own will. The ruling mentioned that Molko and Leal had been forcibly abducted by deprogrammers hired by their parents from a public space while fundraising by selling flowers.

Amicus brief

Attorney Paul Morantz, who specialized in representing brainwashing claimants, filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of the plaintiffs and served as pro bono appellate counsel, participating in oral arguments. The American Psychological Association filed a brief stating that the coercive persuasion theory advanced by the plaintiffs is not a meaningful scientific concept, that the hypothesis is divorced from its theoretical basis, lacks methodological foundations, and uses scientific language to cloak an attack on religious liberty. Sociologist Benjamin Zablocki later criticized the APA's brief, noting that the theory of coercive persuasion, which he called brainwashing, had neither been proved nor disproved by scientific consensus.

Other issues and opinions

The court ruled that false imprisonment can exist even without an arrest, and that the Free Exercise Clause does not bar fraud actions against religious organizations when the action involves conduct rather than belief. Law professor R. Kent Greenawalt criticized the ruling, arguing that religious individuals often voluntarily accept psychologically harmful conditions, that the defendants knew the group's identity, and that courts would likely rule differently if a more established religion, such as the Roman Catholic Church, were involved.