Gloucester Township wins dismissal in federal tax-exemption lawsuit by Jehovah’s Witnesses
Gloucester Township, NJ – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses challenging a tax dispute with Gloucester Township, ruling the case cannot proceed in U.S. District Court. The decision ends, for now, a legal battle over the tax-exempt status of a religious property in Camden County.
In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge O’Hearn granted the township’s motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The ruling followed oral arguments heard in November.
The court stated, “This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Township of Gloucester’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).” The judge concluded, “For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.”
Dispute centers on tax-exempt religious property
The lawsuit was filed by the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a nonprofit organization that owns the Turnersville Assembly Hall in Blackwood. The property serves as a place of worship and large religious gatherings.
According to the complaint, the organization argued the property “has been declared tax-exempt from local real estate taxes pursuant to the Constitution of New Jersey and New Jersey statutes.” The facility was originally developed in the 1990s and has changed ownership among Jehovah’s Witnesses entities over the years, most recently transferring to the current plaintiff in 2023.
Key Points
- Federal judge dismissed lawsuit filed by Jehovah’s Witnesses against Gloucester Township
- Case challenged tax-exempt status of a religious assembly hall in Blackwood
- Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction and that the complaint failed to state a valid claim
Court questions basis of tax-exemption claim
In the opinion, the court raised doubts about the plaintiff’s assertion that the property’s tax-exempt status had been formally established. The judge noted uncertainty in the complaint’s language regarding whether any binding determination had ever been made.
The opinion stated, “It is unclear to the Court precisely what CCJW alleges in this paragraph of the Amended Complaint, as surely if there was a judicial or other binding determination as to the tax-exempt status of the property there would be no dispute between the parties.”
The court indicated that prior treatment of the property may have been administrative rather than legally binding, referencing township records and agreements cited in the complaint.
The dismissal does not address the ultimate merits of whether the property qualifies for tax exemption under New Jersey law, but instead focuses on procedural and jurisdictional grounds. It remains unclear whether the plaintiff will pursue the matter in state court or file an amended claim.
