Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
The Supreme Court’s treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not primarily about freedom of religion. It is more about society’s limits on state support for religious communities.
Updated: 4 days ago
You are now reading an editorial. It expresses the opinion of Fædrelandsvennen.
Big words are being used about the decision that the Supreme Court will soon make. Spokesperson Jørgen Pedersen at the Scandinavian office of Jehovah’s Witnesses says the case should concern everyone who wants to “practice their faith without state interference.” The organization’s lawyer Anders Ryssdal believes that it will create “considerable legal uncertainty for other religious communities” if the state prevails.
The reason is that the state has refused to pay out state subsidies to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The then state administrator in Akershus, Valgerd Svarstad Haugland, put her foot down when the subsidy for 2021 was to be paid out. She believed that the organization violated important human rights, and thus the terms of the Religious Communities Act. Specifically, this concerned, among other things, children’s rights and members’ free right to resign from Jehovah’s Witnesses, when the practice was social isolation and loss of contact with friends and family.
The state prevailed with its view in the district court, while Jehovah’s Witnesses appealed and were successful in the Court of Appeal.
Those who defend Jehovah’s Witnesses are right that this is a fundamentally important issue. That is why it is closely followed by many, not least other religious communities. But the principle is not primarily about freedom of religion. Fortunately, it has very broad support, as it must have in a liberal society. And in that freedom lies the right to believe and think differently than the majority does.
The principle of this case is whether the state should be obliged to provide financial support to all types of religious communities, regardless of how these communities treat their members. This is not about being able to “practice one’s faith without state intervention”, but whether the state should provide support to religious communities with practices that go against central human rights. Fædrelandsvennen has written several cases about this on reportageplass , cases that have also been part of the basis for the state not to provide the grants.
When the Supreme Court hears this complex case in February, the interests of an organization should not weigh most heavily, but the interests of its members.
The case is scheduled to be heard on February 5th-9th 2026 and will be live-streamed on AvoidJW.
The State v/Ministry of Children and Family Affairs
(Government Attorney v/attorney Liv Inger Gjone Gabrielsen)
v/
Jehovah’s Witnesses
(attorney Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal)
The case concerns: Jehovah’s Witnesses – the validity of the state’s decision to deny subsidies and registration as a religious community. Whether Jehovah’s Witnesses violate the right to withdraw and the rights of children. Religious Communities Act Section 6.
The case number in the Supreme Court is 25-089326SIV-HRET.
See the decision from the Supreme Court’s Appeals Committee (PDF) .