Every federal lawsuit accusing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of defrauding members over tithing has been dismissed. Three major cases drove the LDS tithing lawsuits forward between 2019 and 2025: James Huntsman’s suit in California, Laura Gaddy’s proposed class action in Utah, and a nine-plaintiff multidistrict class action consolidated before the same Utah court. Each ended differently. The Ninth Circuit found the Church’s statements were not misleading, the Tenth Circuit split its reasoning between First Amendment grounds and failure to show reliance, and the MDL judge threw the case out as filed too late. No court has decided whether a donor can ever win a fraud claim over tithing without colliding with the First Amendment.
What Triggered the Lawsuits
The cases share a factual spine. In 2019, David Nielsen, a former senior portfolio manager at Ensign Peak Advisors, the entity that manages the Church’s financial reserves, filed a whistleblower complaint with the IRS. He alleged the fund had grown past $100 billion, had made no charitable distributions in 22 years, and had spent roughly $1.4 billion to finance the City Creek Center shopping mall near Temple Square and about $600 million to prop up Beneficial Life Insurance Company.1CBS News. Mormon Church Ensign Peak Whistleblower David Nielsen Allegations
In February 2023, the SEC charged both Ensign Peak and the Church with violating federal securities law. From 1997 to 2019, Ensign Peak had failed to file required disclosure forms and instead created thirteen shell companies around the country to file them, falsely representing that those entities held investment authority. The SEC said Church senior leadership approved the arrangement to keep the public from connecting the assets to the Church. Ensign Peak paid $4 million and the Church paid $1 million.2U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC Charges Ensign Peak Advisers and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints When Ensign Peak filed a consolidated disclosure in February 2020, it reported managing securities valued at roughly $37.8 billion.3U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-21306 By the first quarter of 2026, the publicly disclosed U.S. equity portfolio stood at $53.7 billion, with independent estimates of total investments running higher.4The Salt Lake Tribune. LDS Church Is Buying Up Stocks
The Church denied Nielsen’s characterization. Bishop Christopher Waddell said the Beneficial Life funding responded to the 2008–2009 financial crisis, called the mall a legitimate investment, and said the shell companies were used on advice of counsel for confidentiality.1CBS News. Mormon Church Ensign Peak Whistleblower David Nielsen Allegations Those revelations supplied the factual foundation for all three lawsuits.
Huntsman v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
James Huntsman, a former member and brother of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., sued in federal court in California in March 2021. He alleged Church leaders had falsely told donors that tithing would not fund commercial ventures while actually diverting money to the City Creek mall and Beneficial Life. He sought $5 million, reflecting cash and stock he had contributed between 1993 and 2015.5Deseret News. Huntsman Tithing Lawsuit Dismissed by 9th Circuit Panel
The Church’s defense was that it had always distinguished between “tithing funds” and “earnings on invested reserve funds,” and that City Creek was built with the latter. The district court granted summary judgment for the Church in September 2021. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reinstated the suit 2-1 in August 2023, finding factual disputes over whether the Church had misrepresented the source of the mall money.6U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Huntsman v. Corporation of the President, No. 21-56056
The En Banc Reversal
The full Ninth Circuit reheard the case with eleven judges. On January 31, 2025, the court unanimously reversed the panel and reinstated summary judgment for the Church. Writing for six judges, Judge Michelle Friedland held the Church had “long explained” that reserve fund earnings, which included returns on originally tithed money, were used for commercial projects, and that “no reasonable juror could conclude that the Church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project.”7Courthouse News Service. En Banc Ninth Circuit Sides With Mormon Church in Dispute Over Tithes8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Huntsman v. Corporation of the President, No. 21-56056 (En Banc)
The majority said the church autonomy doctrine had “no bearing” on the case because resolving the fraud question did not require interpreting Church doctrine. Five judges disagreed on that reasoning. Judge Daniel Bress, joined by three colleagues, wrote that the plaintiff could not have prevailed “without running headlong into basic First Amendment prohibitions on courts resolving ecclesiastical disputes.” Judge Patrick Bumatay argued the church autonomy doctrine barred the court from reaching the merits at all.7Courthouse News Service. En Banc Ninth Circuit Sides With Mormon Church in Dispute Over Tithes
The Church responded that its leaders act with “care and discretion” regarding tithing and are “ultimately accountable to the highest judge, the Lord Jesus Christ.”9The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Newsroom. Stewardship of Tithing Funds: Court Ruling Acknowledges Church Integrity Huntsman was reported to be weighing a Supreme Court petition, but none appears in the Court’s docket.10By Common Consent. James Huntsman v. The Church: The End
Gaddy v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Laura Gaddy filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in August 2019. The suit reached further than Huntsman’s. Gaddy and co-plaintiffs Lyle Small and Leanne Harris alleged not only that the Church had misled donors about the City Creek mall but also that it had misrepresented core religious history and doctrine, including the First Vision, the origin of the Book of Mormon, the translation of the Book of Abraham, and the character of Joseph Smith, all to induce faith and donations. The complaint asserted fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, civil RICO, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty.11vLex. Gaddy v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 665 F.Supp.3d 1263
The district court dismissed the doctrinal claims early on First Amendment grounds and eventually, on March 28, 2023, Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby granted the Church’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in full and denied further leave to amend.11vLex. Gaddy v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 665 F.Supp.3d 1263
Tenth Circuit Ruling
On August 26, 2025, a three-judge Tenth Circuit panel unanimously affirmed. Judge Allison Eid wrote that the church autonomy doctrine barred the RICO theory based on alleged doctrinal misrepresentations because it “improperly requires adjudication of ecclesiastical questions, namely, the truth or falsity of religious beliefs.” On the second RICO theory, which focused on alleged misuse of tithing for the mall, the court did not apply the autonomy doctrine but held the plaintiffs had failed to plead that they relied on the Church’s tithing statements when they contributed. Judge Gregory Phillips concurred in the result but wrote separately that he did not believe the church autonomy doctrine should apply to tithing cases at all.12Deseret News. Church 10th Circuit Gaddy Latter-Day Saints Religious Liberty Tithing Case
In December 2025, the Gaddy plaintiffs sought more time to petition the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch granted the extension and set a January 29, 2026 deadline.13Supreme Court of the United States. Docket 25A716 Available records do not yet show whether a petition was filed or the Court’s response.
The Consolidated Class Action
Beginning in October 2023, nine plaintiffs, including Daniel Chappell and Masen Christensen, filed separate suits that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated in April 2024 as In re: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Tithing Litigation, assigned to Chief Judge Shelby.14U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. MDL 3102 Case Management Order 1 The plaintiffs alleged that since roughly 1997 the Church had used Ensign Peak as a “slush fund” to hide the scale of its holdings and had channeled tithing into for-profit ventures while telling members their donations funded charitable and religious work. The consolidated complaint pleaded breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.15U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. MDL 3102 Pretrial Order No. 4
On April 17, 2025, Judge Shelby dismissed the consolidated complaint with prejudice. He held the claims were time-barred under Utah’s three-year statute of limitations for fraud. The Nielsen whistleblower report and the ensuing media coverage, including reporting by the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, placed the plaintiffs on constructive notice of their claims no later than early 2020, but they did not sue until October 2023.16KUER. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against LDS Church Over How It Uses Tithings Shelby also found the fraud claims inadequately pleaded. He declined to reach the church autonomy question, citing the principle of deciding cases on the narrowest available grounds.17U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. MDL 3102 Memorandum Decision
The plaintiffs appealed. The Tenth Circuit heard oral argument on March 17, 2026. Judge Nancy Moritz pressed whether widespread media coverage can constitute constructive knowledge triggering the statute of limitations regardless of whether a particular plaintiff saw the news. Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy argued for the Church that extensive public reporting between 2019 and 2023 was itself a “market test” of whether a timely suit was possible.18Courthouse News Service. Appeals Court Questions Timeliness of Fraud Class Action Over Mormon Church Tithes A ruling has not yet been reported.
The Church Autonomy Question Remains Open
The through-line across the three cases is that no court has resolved whether a donor can sue a church for fraud over the use of contributions without hitting a First Amendment barrier. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc majority sidestepped the constitutional issue and ruled the Church’s statements were not misleading, while five concurring judges wanted to hold the First Amendment flatly bars such suits.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Huntsman v. Corporation of the President, No. 21-56056 (En Banc) The Tenth Circuit in Gaddy applied the doctrine to doctrinal claims but not to tithing claims, dismissing the latter for lack of pleaded reliance.12Deseret News. Church 10th Circuit Gaddy Latter-Day Saints Religious Liberty Tithing Case Judge Shelby in the MDL avoided the doctrine entirely, dismissing on timing and pleading.17U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. MDL 3102 Memorandum Decision
A Yale Law School analysis of the Huntsman and related rulings described the church autonomy doctrine as “a constitutionally grounded, mandatory protection that limits judicial review” and shields religious institutions from “the very process of inquiry and litigation.”19Yale Law School. Judicial Power and Church Autonomy The pending Tenth Circuit appeal in the MDL and any Supreme Court petition from the Gaddy plaintiffs could still change the picture. For now, every donor fraud claim brought against the Church has been dismissed before trial.