DALLAS (TX)
The Roys Report [Chicago IL]
November 26, 2025
By Mark A. Kellner
A Texas appeals court has temporarily halted proceedings in a high-profile lawsuit alleging defamation by Gateway Church, saying it will consider arguments that the case intrudes into constitutionally protected church autonomy.
If ultimately successful, those arguments could have wide implications for how far courts can go in reviewing interior communications inside a church relating to child abuse.
The Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas issued the stay Nov. 21, pausing the lawsuit between plaintiffs Cindy Clemishire and her father, Jerry Clemishire, and defendants Gateway Church and three of its independent elders.
The order leaves the pause in effect while the court reviews Gateway’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction.
The Clemishires sued when Gateway in June 2024 responded internally and publicly to allegations founding pastor Robert Morris sexually abused Cindy Clemishire in the 1980s, beginning when she was 12.
Morris, who resigned from Gateway in June 2024, is now serving a criminal sentence in Oklahoma after pleading guilty to sex-offense charges.
“We are pleased that the Court of Appeals has granted our request to stay the case against Gateway and the independent elders while it considers our strong legal arguments,” Gateway attorney Ron Breaux said in a statement to CBS News Dallas. “Gateway and its leaders simply do not belong in this lawsuit, which asks a secular court to pass judgment on the church’s statements and actions while investigating its former pastor’s misconduct.”
Clemishire attorney and State Rep. Jeff Leach told the station they will not quit the case: “(W)e will not rest or relent until Cindy gets the justice she deserves.”
The lawsuit does not concern the abuse itself — conduct that occurred long before Morris founded the church in 2000 — but instead challenges how Gateway and its elders described the matter last year. The Clemishires contend certain church statements were defamatory.
Gateway, however, argues the First Amendment bars Texas courts from evaluating a church’s internal and external communications about its pastor’s conduct.
In filings, the church says the Clemishires’ claims “call into question” ecclesiastical judgments about church discipline, pastoral misconduct, and communications to the congregation — areas that courts may not adjudicate.
The church also argues that the plaintiffs seek intrusive discovery into “internal church communications,” meeting notes of the Gateway elders, and records related to the church’s decision-making following Morris’ resignation. Gateway insists such inquiries violate the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine” under the U.S. and Texas constitutions.
The trial court had allowed discovery to proceed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, authorizing document production and depositions of Gateway’s independent elders. The church quickly asked the Fifth Court of Appeals to intervene, arguing that the discovery order itself posed irreparable First Amendment harm.
In its Nov. 21 order, the appellate court agreed to halt proceedings — not only the trial court’s discovery order, but “all proceedings” between Gateway and the Clemishires — pending full review of the mandamus petition. The Clemishires are permitted to file a response by Dec. 29.
The pause is explicitly temporary. The court did not rule on the merits of Gateway’s appeal, nor did it endorse the church’s constitutional arguments. Instead, it signaled that the issues raised are significant enough to justify a stay while briefing continues.
The central dispute concerns whether civil courts may adjudicate defamation claims arising from church leadership’s statements about allegations of pastoral sexual misconduct.
In its 148-page mandamus petition, Gateway argues they may not. The filing states that the trial court “erred by greenlighting a lawsuit … that necessarily and expressly ‘call[s] into question’ church ‘communications’ regarding the ‘character or conduct’” of Morris.
The church cites recent decisions from the Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Court of Appeals holding that courts cannot examine how churches investigate, characterize, or communicate about clergy misconduct. Among examples cited is a 2022 Texas Supreme Court ruling in Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, which found in favor of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.
Gateway contends that the Clemishires’ claims would “reach behind the ecclesiastical curtain,” requiring a court to evaluate spiritual governance, internal deliberations, and elder-board decisions — something the church says secular courts cannot do.
The church also argues that none of the challenged statements are defamatory as a matter of law. But it stresses that courts cannot even reach that question because the First Amendment bars jurisdiction at the threshold.
Gateway’s emergency motion warns that allowing discovery to proceed would cause immediate constitutional injury. Once compelled disclosures occur, the motion argues, “the bell cannot be unrung,” citing a 2017 case, Paxton v. City of Dallas.
The Clemishires have argued the church’s initial June 14, 2024, internal message, which referred to Morris having been “involved in inappropriate sexual behavior with a young lady,” mischaracterized the abuse and caused further harm. Gateway later publicly acknowledged that Morris abused a 12-year-old child over several years.
The underlying facts of Morris’ admitted abuse are not in dispute—Gateway has said it is “heartbroken and appalled.” But the church insists that evaluating its pastoral-governance processes, biblical duties of elders, and internal church reform efforts is an impermissible judicial inquiry.
The Fifth Court’s order means that, for now, the lawsuit will not proceed until the appellate court determines whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to hear it at all. The outcome could influence how Texas courts handle future litigation involving church statements about clergy misconduct — particularly in an era when religious institutions face rising scrutiny over their handling of abuse allegations.
The mandamus petition remains pending. The court has not yet set a date for a ruling on the petition.
Mark A. Kellner is a reporter based in Mesquite, Nevada. He most recently covered statewide elections for the New York Post and was for three years the Faith & Family Reporter for The Washington Times. Mark is a graduate of the University of the Cumberlands and also attended Boston University’s College of Communication.