Fort Bend Christian Academy, a private Christian school in Texas serving students from pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade, sought a writ of mandamus after a trial court refused to dismiss claims brought by the parents of a former student, B.H. The parents alleged that B.H. suffered a traumatic brain injury after a teammate violently head-butted him during football practice while coaches allegedly failed to intervene. According to the complaint, B.H. displayed concussion symptoms after the incident, but the coaching staff failed to implement the School’s concussion protocol or emergency medical plan. B.H. allegedly experienced lasting cognitive impairments, and his parents ultimately withdrew him after they claimed the Academy failed to provide appropriate academic accommodations.
The parents asserted a negligence claim on B.H.’s behalf and also brought individual claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). Those individual claims alleged that the Academy breached obligations contained in the Enrollment Agreement and Student and Family Handbook concerning academic accommodations, bullying and harassment, student discipline, and concussion management.
The Academy argued that the parents’ individual claims were barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The doctrine arises from the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses and generally prevents civil courts from resolving disputes that would require them to interpret religious doctrine or interfere with a religious organization’s internal governance. At the same time, courts may resolve disputes involving religious institutions if they can do so by applying “neutral principles of law” that do not require inquiry into religious beliefs or church governance.
The Texas Court of Appeals agreed with the Academy in part. First, it held that the parents’ claims relating to academic accommodations could not proceed. The Student Handbook explained that the Academy offered a biblically based college-preparatory curriculum and described the limited circumstances under which accommodations might be provided to students with learning differences. The Court concluded that determining whether the Academy should have modified its curriculum or provided additional accommodations after B.H.’s injury would necessarily require a court to second-guess how the school applied its educational policies within the context of its Christian mission. Because those decisions were intertwined with the Academy’s religious educational philosophy, the claims fell within the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.
The Court reached the same conclusion regarding the parents’ claims based on the Academy’s bullying, harassment, and disciplinary policies. The parents alleged that Academy officials had promised B.H. would be protected from bullying and that the School maintained a “zero-tolerance” approach, yet failed to prevent the assault that ultimately caused his injuries. The Court observed, however, that the Handbook described discipline as “Bibliocentric” and emphasized discipleship, spiritual growth, and resolution of student misconduct according to God’s Word. Because evaluating whether the Academy properly enforced those policies would require judicial review of religiously grounded disciplinary decisions, the Court held that these claims were also barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.
The Court rejected the parents’ argument that any claim involving student health or safety automatically falls outside the doctrine. Instead, it explained that the critical question is not whether the dispute involves safety, but whether resolving the claim would require the court to interfere with religious governance. The Court emphasized that its ruling did not insulate the Academy from all civil liability arising from the incident. Indeed, the negligence claim brought on B.H.’s behalf remained pending because it arose from duties imposed by law, independent of the parties’ contractual relationship or the School’s religious policies.
The Court reached a different result with respect to the parents’ claims based on the School’s concussion-management obligations. The Student Handbook incorporated by reference the Bylaws of the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools (“TAPPS”), a private athletic association whose membership includes both religious and nonreligious schools. TAPPS requires member schools to maintain concussion-management policies, train coaches annually, remove athletes exhibiting concussion symptoms from play, and obtain appropriate medical clearance before return to participation. The Academy’s athletic trainer testified that the School maintained such a protocol but that no coach reported B.H.’s symptoms immediately following the incident, delaying his evaluation until the following day.
Unlike the Academy’s internal educational and disciplinary policies, the Court concluded that the alleged concussion-management obligations arose from the Academy’s voluntary membership in a secular athletic organization rather than from religious doctrine. Because all TAPPS member schools, religious and nonreligious alike, must comply with these safety rules, the Court held that the claims could be resolved using neutral principles of contract and tort law without requiring interpretation of religious doctrine or interfering with the Academy’s internal governance. Accordingly, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not bar those claims.
The Court therefore conditionally granted relief in part, directing the trial court to dismiss the parents’ claims based on the Academy’s academic accommodations, bullying, harassment, and disciplinary policies, while allowing the claims premised on alleged violations of TAPPS concussion-management requirements to proceed.
In re Fort Bend Christian Acad. (Tex.Ct.App. June 23, 2026) 2026 WL 1791151.
Note: This decision provides important guidance for religious private schools regarding the limits of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. While courts generally will not second-guess educational, disciplinary, or student-support decisions that are grounded in a school’s religious mission or policies, schools may still be held accountable for obligations arising from secular commitments, such as athletic association rules, state safety requirements, or other voluntarily assumed standards, that can be evaluated under neutral principles of law.