Bishop Dionisije (Milivojevich) of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States and Canada was defrocked after being investigated for claims of misconduct.

The hierarchal authority of the church reserves the right, and holds in its power the ability to manage and control properties, finances, and the appointment or removal of clergy.

Dionisije refused to recognize his suspension and petitioned the Patriarch arguing the Mother Church had not worked within the parameters of their own penal code or the American-Canadian Serbian Orthodox constitution.

Dionisije also filed with the circuit court in Illinois proclaiming his post, and continued control of assets and properties owned by his diocese.

The case went to the Illinois Supreme Court who held that the Holy Synod had in fact acted in violation of their own penal code, and the American-Canadian constitution when reorganizing the diocese.

The holding by the Illinois Supreme Court was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments which prohibit secular legal interference in rulings determined by hierarchical religious tribunals.

Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority opinion stating that he found that there was no constitutional indisposition with regard to First Amendment infringement by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Rehnquist believed that the Illinois court was simply expected to determine the correct choice of law and apply it to the canonical dispute through its own interpretation.

Rehnquist referred to Watson v. Jones further stating that equating religious organizations with other voluntary associations has no bearing on or influence by the First Amendment.

He suggested that common sense must be applied in decisions where majority rule displaces an attempt by the minority to usurp documented policies and procedures – much the same as it would be in a non-sectarian intra-organizational dispute.

He does however agree that the First Amendment prohibits government from displacing free choice of the citizens of the United States by placing bias on one religious organization over another.

He did allow that unless there are unambiguous rules stated that can be interpreted separate from any religious affect, the courts cannot make determinations in church matters.