Anglican Reformed Catholic Church Files Motion to Dismiss ACNA Bishop Dobbs Complaint

Three independent reasons necessitate dismissal they argue

Bishop Derek Jones Bishop Julian Dobbs

David W. Virtue I www.virtueonline.org I August 10, 2026

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Attorneys for Archbishop Derek Jones and the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy filed a motion Aug. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, to dismiss a defamation complaint by Julian Dobbs, the acting archbishop of ACNA. The motion also seeks “all such relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”

In his complaint, Dobbs alleged Jones defamed him in comments Jones made to his own clergy during a closed, confidential, intra-church meeting held to discuss the events leading to a pending federal lawsuit. Dobbs also claimed Jones defamed him in statements that were part of a sworn declaration and a verified amended complaint filed in that lawsuit in South Carolina, as well as in a national newspaper article covering the South Carolina litigation.

Jones’ motion to dismiss is first based on constitutional limitations on the authority of secular courts to intervene in ecclesiastical disputes, which are at the heart of Dobbs’ defamation complaint. Truth is the ultimate defense against defamation, but to determine the truth in this case, the court would have to resolve contested questions of canonical authority, ministerial discipline and church financial accountability – all of which is outside the court’s authority.

Thus, permitting Dobbs’ “defamation claims to proceed would establish a dangerous precedent under which any ecclesiastical dispute could be recharacterized as a tort claim and subjected to judicial review,” the motion says.

“Religious leaders would be deterred from defending their ecclesiastical authority, communicating with their congregations about church governance, or exposing what they believe to be ecclesiastical wrongdoing for fear of civil liability,” it continues. “This chilling effect would violate the Free Exercise Clause and undermine the autonomy of religious institutions.

“The First Amendment protects not only the right of religious organizations to govern themselves according to their own rules, but also the right of religious leaders to speak freely on matters of church governance and discipline without fear that their statements will be subjected to judicial scrutiny in tort actions.”

Furthermore, Alabama law provides an absolute litigation privilege that bars defamation claims made in, or preliminary to, judicial proceedings. That privilege extends to all the statements Dobbs is challenging, the motion says. Not even malice can undo the privilege, it adds.

As for the newspaper article, the motion notes that Dobbs conflated independent journalism with a statement by Jones. “Bishop Jones did not author the article, select its subject, determine its contents, or serve as the source of most of the information it contains,” the motion points out.

Additionally, Dobbs’ complaint does not identify any false, defamatory statement Jones made to the reporter. “Instead, it alleges generally that the statements ‘need not all be specifically listed’ and treats the article as another dissemination of accusations Bishop Jones had previously made elsewhere. … That intentional formulation avoids the central relevant question at hand: What false statement did Bishop Jones actually communicate to [the reporter] that was subsequently published? The Complaint cannot establish that, because no such statement exists,” the motion says.

Also, in reference to the newspaper article, the motion argues that since Dobbs is a public figure, he must show actual malice in making a defamation claim. “Bishop Dobbs has thrust himself into the vortex of this public controversy and sought to influence its resolution. He is therefore a public figure for purposes of the JAFC-ACNA dispute and must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence,” the motion says, adding that Dobbs “cannot meet this standard” as the statement attributed to Jones is consistent with the factual record.

Another issue with Dobbs’ claims about the newspaper statement is that they infringe Jones’ free speech rights. “Because the statement addresses a matter of public concern, is based on disclosed and substantially true facts, and does not contain a provably false assertion of fact about Bishop Dobbs, it is entitled to full First Amendment protection,” the motion asserts.

The motion to dismiss concludes by returning to the ecclesiastical argument: “The federal courts and the Supreme Court of Alabama could hardly be more clear: church defamation cases, especially those intrinsically connected to ecclesiastical discipline, simply cannot be adjudicated in a secular court. … Bishop Julian M. Dobbs subjected himself to a life of ministry and to its consequences and sacrifices, including, poignantly, the tensions surrounding church discipline. He cannot now come to this Court and ask it to subvert the very process he chose to live by.”