Legal status of the Universal Life Church

With respect to the validity of ordinations for the purposes of those ordained performing ceremonies with civic consequences such as marriages, individual U.S. states and other countries including the UK have made varying determinations, occasionally hinging their decisions on whether ordination was obtained in person or by some remote means, such as by mail, by phone, or over the internet.

[6] A 1983 ruling of the Australian High Court that a religion need not have a belief in God to be recognized was characterized as opening the door for the Universal Life Church, among others, to operate in Australia.

The Church brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States Court of Federal Claims with respect to its tax-exempt status for the years covered.

The Court of Federal Claims upheld the revocation on the ground that the Church had not been operated solely for tax-exempt purposes as required by I.R.C.

[10] In 2001, religious scholar James R. Lewis wrote that the IRS had "always suspected the ULC of being nothing but a tax dodge", noting that the IRS once ruled "that ULC congregations could not receive tax-exempt status because they had no formal beliefs", a determination that was overturned by a federal court ruling that "First Amendment forbade any branch of the government to tell any church whether it must have beliefs or not".

[11] Historically, the IRS has ruled in some years, but not in others, that the church and various splinter groups formed from it were tax exempt, depending on issues such as the filing of annual statements.

[12] A large number of people seeking ULC ordination do so in order to be able to legally officiate at weddings[16] or perform other spiritual rites.

Sources have reported a 29% increase in the number of friends or family members acting as wedding officiant since 2009, resulting in over 40% of couples in the US in 2016 choosing this option.

The ULCM notes that "[w]hile several ministers of the Universal Life Church have registered and acted as wedding celebrants in Australia, the Universal Life Church's legal standing there is not as firm as it is in the United States and elsewhere", further noting that they "are actively seeking stronger recognition".

[25] ULC licenses may also allow ministers to perform other rites, such as baptisms and funerals, as well as providing the option to legally start their own organizations.

"[45] The court specifically stated: It is irrational to allow humanists to solemnize marriages if, and only if, they falsely declare that they are a "religion".

[1] The Kentucky Office of the Attorney General has issued Opinion 78-303[49] which states that "the matter of who is a minister of the religious society is left wholly to the recognition of the particular denomination or organization", noting that 'religious society' "is a broad term and includes any group organized and maintained for the support of public worship of God", language which appears to include ministers ordained by the ULC.

[1] Under Maryland law "[a] marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by... any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony",[52] and as of 2011 no court or administrative ruling had excluded those ordained as ministers of the ULC.

[1] Under Massachusetts law, states that "[a] marriage may be solemnized in any place within the commonwealth by the following persons who are residents of the commonwealth: a duly ordained minister of the gospel in good and regular standing with his church or denomination",[53] and as of 2011 no court or administrative ruling had excluded those ordained as ministers of the ULC.

[56] Under Missouri law, "[m]arriages may be solemnized by any clergyman, either active or retired, who is in good standing with any church or synagogue in this state",[57] and as of 2011 no court or administrative ruling had excluded those ordained as ministers of the ULC.

[1] Under Nevada law, "[a]ny licensed or ordained minister in good standing within his denomination, whose denomination, governing body and church, or any of them, are incorporated or organized or established in this state, may join together as husband and wife persons who present a marriage license obtained from any county clerk of the State...",[60] and as of 2011 no court or administrative ruling had excluded those ordained as ministers of the ULC.

[1] Under New Mexico law, "[a] person who is an ordained member of the clergy or who is an authorized representative of a federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo may solemnize the contract of marriage without regard to sect or rites and customs the person may practice",[63] and as of 2011 no court or administrative ruling had excluded those ordained as ministers of the ULC.

[70] Recognition of the ULC and its ministers by the State of New York therefore remains a question of fact in the Third Judicial Department pending further litigation.

In Lynch v. Universal Life Church (October 1985) an individual accused the ULC of fraud based on representations by the ULC that a person ordained through its services would be able to perform marriages, subject to a disclaimer that those ordained should check with local authorities to determine whether local law permitted this.

[1] In the 2007 case of Heyer v. Hollerbush, the York County Court of Common Pleas ruled that a marriage performed by a ULC minister was invalid because the minister did not regularly preach in a church, nor did he have an actual congregation, conditions which the court found to be required by Pennsylvania law.

[92] Under Texas law, persons "authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony" include "a person who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony",[93] No court or administrative ruling has excluded ministers ordained by the ULC.

The Texas Attorney General has also issued an Opinion on ULC ministers and exemptions from the Psychologists Licensing Act.

[95] In 2001, the state of Utah passed legislation banning ministers ordained by mail or over the Internet from officiating legal marriage.

The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of ULC, declaring the statute unconstitutional and permanently barring the state from enforcing it.

[97] Under the laws of Vermont (a) "[m]arriages may be solemnized by... a member of the clergy residing in this State and ordained or licensed, or otherwise regularly authorized thereto by the published laws or discipline of the general conference, convention, or other authority of his or her faith or denomination", with additional provisions allowing for solemnization by clergy from other states or Canada with specified conditions,[98] and as of 2011 no court or administrative ruling had excluded those ordained as ministers of the ULC.

The Court stated: "[w]e do not believe that the General Assembly ever intended to qualify, for licensing to marry, a minister whose title and status could be so casually and cavalierly acquired".

[101] In the state of Washington, persons authorized to solemnize marriages include "any regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization",[102] and as of 2011 no court or administrative ruling had excluded those ordained as ministers of the ULC.

[1] Under Wyoming law, persons by whom marriage may be solemnized include "every licensed or ordained minister of the gospel, bishop, priest or rabbi, or other qualified person acting in accordance with the traditions or rites for the solemnization of marriage of any religion, denomination or religious society...",[106] and as of 2011 no court or administrative ruling had excluded those ordained as ministers of the ULC.