SBC Mission Board (NAMB)

Mission Focus

The Mission Board works with state conventions to accomplish their shared goals. How religious organizations like the Mission Board cooperate with local church organizations is a sacred right protected by the First Amendment. Churches have the right to decide for themselves how to structure their ministries in order to achieve their religious mission.

Yet, one federal appellate court decision threatens to chip away at this right. In 2014, a state convention terminated its Executive Director after a disagreement about how best to work with the Mission Board to accomplish their goals. The former ministry leader then brought a lawsuit against the Mission Board, forcing a secular court to evaluate the religious character of the Mission Board. Resolving such a claim requires federal courts to involve themselves in the mission of a religious organization—something the First Amendment categorically bars courts from doing.

A federal district court agreed and dismissed the suit, concluding that the Constitution protects the independence of religious organizations and secular courts may not involve themselves in such religious disputes.  On appeal, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, allowing the lawsuit to move forward. Nine judges on the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed its panel decision over the objection of eight dissenting judges.

In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.

But religious institutions have the right to freely choose who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. There should be no doubt that religious institutions—not judges—have the freedom to choose how to fulfill their religious missions and by whom.

As Judge Ho of the Fifth Circuit explained in his dissent from the denial of en banc review, “If religious liberty under our Constitution means anything, it surely means at least this much: that the government may not interfere in an internal dispute over who should lead a church—and especially not when the dispute is due to conflicting visions about the growth of the church.”

If a court can evaluate the religious character of NAMB, it can also tell the local church who it must hire to preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. The First Amendment already struck that balance for us in favor of church autonomy. So, First Liberty continued to fight on behalf of NAMB.

Then in April 2024, the Fifth Circuit once again heard oral argument in the case. And in September 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled that courts cannot “interfere with matters of church government, matters of faith, [and] matters of doctrine,” dismissing the lawsuit.

This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court who denied to hear the case in February 2026, securing a victory for NAMB.

“There should be no doubt that religious institutions—not judges—have the freedom to choose how to fulfill their religious missions and with whom they will partner to carry out those missions,” said Matthew Martens, partner at WilmerHale. “We are grateful that the Fifth Circuit recognized this important principle of religious freedom and that the Supreme Court upheld its decision.”

“The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with the autonomy of religious organizations, associations, or churches,” said Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel for First Liberty Institute. “No court should be able to tell the church who it must partner with to preach their beliefs, teach their faith, or carry out their mission.”