Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
Vart Land
Sondre Bjordal
April 30, 2026
The State Took Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Supreme Court. Now the Judgment Has Been Delivered
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES: The country’s highest court has decided whether the state can deny the religious community state funding and registration as a religious community.
FINALLY DECIDED: The case between Jehovah’s Witnesses and the state was heard by the Supreme Court from 5–7 February 2026.
Now the judgment from the Supreme Court has been delivered:
Jehovah’s Witnesses are upheld in their claim that they have the right to state funding and registration as a religious community.
The judgment was delivered with dissent, by three judges against two.
The majority believes that the state has not been able to prove that Jehovah’s Witnesses violate children’s rights, nor that the practice of expelling former members constitutes undue pressure that violates the right to freely withdraw from a religious community.
The minority of two judges believes that the state was justified in denying Jehovah’s Witnesses state funding and registration as a religious community. The minority believes that the threshold for violations of Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act should be lower than what the majority has set.
The minority also believes that Jehovah’s Witnesses violate the right to free withdrawal, and that the state has not violated freedom of religion under the European Convention on Human Rights when it intervened against the religious community.
– Heavy
– “I am very saddened. This will be very hard for former Witnesses,” says Jan Frode Nilsen to Vårt Land.
He is one of several former Jehovah’s Witnesses who have testified against the religious community in court. He now believes that Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act, which sets out the conditions for withdrawing funding, was poorly worked out when it was drafted. The law came into force in 2021.
– This is about terribly poor drafting in the Religious Communities Act. It is too vague.
Nilsen says that there has been a great deal of international attention connected to the court case. He feels that a lot of focus has been placed on problematic conditions within the religious community.
– It has been an absolutely extraordinary process over the past five years. We have achieved a great deal, both in terms of attention and public awareness.
Historic case
This is the first time the Supreme Court has considered the application of the Religious Communities Act from 2021.
The most central legal provision in the case has been Section 6 of the Religious Communities Act, which states that religious communities can be denied funding if they “exercise violence or coercion, issue threats, violate children’s rights, breach statutory anti-discrimination provisions, or in other ways seriously violate the rights and freedoms of others.”
The perhaps most central question in the case has been whether this legal provision applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of distancing themselves from those who have withdrawn or been expelled. Furthermore, it has been central for the court to assess whether the serious social consequences mean that members, and particularly minors, are in reality not free to withdraw.
Liv-Inger Gjone Gabrielsen represented the case for the Ministry of Children and Families. She says:
– “The Ministry of Children and Families is satisfied that the case has been thoroughly considered by the Supreme Court. The fact that the judgment is not unanimous shows that the case has not been straightforward. The Ministry and the County Governor will now begin work to prepare new decisions that follow up the judgment.”
This is what the judgment says
Regarding the claim that the religious community violates children’s rights, the justice delivering the leading opinion writes that those who choose to be baptised are most often over the religious age of majority of 15. For those under this age, the majority believes that no evidence has been presented to suggest that their “decision to be baptised is not based on informed and independent choices,” and that it must be assumed “that the minor is also aware of the consequences of withdrawing or being expelled from Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
The majority believes that the exclusion practice toward minors appears to have become more considerate than before, and that the practice does not constitute psychological violence under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The minority, led by Justice Poulsen, on the other hand believes that the religious community has a practice toward former members whereby contact “changes and is reduced to such a degree” that the right to free withdrawal is violated.
In contrast to the majority, the minority believes that it is not of great importance that those who join are aware of the consequences of leaving when they join. Justice Poulsen writes that: “precisely because many relinquish rights and freedoms by being part of a religious community, it is all the more important that it is possible to reclaim these rights and freedoms by withdrawing. This is particularly true for children.”
The State: – The dissent shows the case was not straightforward
Attorney Liv-Inger Gjone Gabrielsen from the Office of the Attorney General, who argued the case for the Ministry of Children and Families, has sent the following comment to Vårt Land:
“The Ministry of Children and Families is satisfied that the case has been thoroughly considered by the Supreme Court. The fact that the judgment is not unanimous shows that the case has not been straightforward. The Ministry and the County Governor will now begin work to prepare new decisions that follow up the judgment.”
3 replies on “Norwegian Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses”
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a disgusting anti-Christ cult that destroys families. Their linguistic trickery in the court systems will not work forever. They indoctrinate the most vulnerable to become members and then emotionally kill them when they attempt to cancel their membership.
On the official JW.org website, in the FAQ section, the following topic is addressed:
Can a Person Resign From Being One of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Yes. A person can resign from our organization in two ways:
• By formal request. Either orally or in writing, a person can state his decision that he no longer wants to be known as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
• By action. A person can take an action that places him outside our worldwide brotherhood. (1 Peter 5:9) For example, he might join another religion and make known his intention to remain part of it.—1 John 2:19.
What if a person no longer preaches or attends your meetings? Do you view that person as having resigned?
No, we do not. Resigning, or disassociating oneself, is different from becoming weak in faith. Often, those who for a time slow down or stop in their worship have not abandoned their faith but are suffering from discouragement. Rather than shunning such ones, we try to give them consolation and support. (1 Thessalonians 5:14; Jude 22) If the person wants help, congregation elders take the lead in providing spiritual assistance.—Galatians 6:1; 1 Peter 5:1-3.
However, the elders are not authorized to coerce or pressure someone to remain as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Each person makes his own choice regarding religion. (Joshua 24:15) We believe that those who worship God must do so willingly, from the heart.—Psalm 110:3; Matthew 22:37.
However, the book Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will says that a member who has chosen to disassociate himself will be treated in the same way as one who has been disfellowshipped:
The term “disassociation” applies to the action taken by a person who is a baptized Witness but deliberately repudiates his Christian standing by stating that he no longer wants to be recognized as, or known as, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or he might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to Bible teachings and therefore is under judgment by Jehovah God.
If a person who is a Christian chooses to disassociate himself, a brief announcement is made to inform the congregation, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person.(Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will, pages 152, 153)
The consequence of leaving the congregation is that the person no longer can have any contact with family and friends in the congregation. (Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will, page 151; How to Remain in God’s Love, pages 39-41.)
Unfortunately, in a 3-2 decision the majority of the Supreme Court of Norway ruled that the practice of excluding (shunning) former members does not meet the legal threshold of “undue pressure” that violates the right to leave a religious group.
In regards to religious freedom they decided to protect the rights of the organization rather than the rights of individual witness members.
The issue at hand concerns the permissible scope of state intervention in the internal affairs of religious communities. Under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as consistently interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, religious autonomy constitutes a core element of freedom of religion. This includes the right of religious groups to organize themselves, define their membership, and regulate their internal discipline.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the state must remain neutral and impartial in matters of religion. In Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, it held that state interference in the internal organization of a religious community undermines pluralism, which is essential in a democratic society. Similarly, in Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania, the Court reaffirmed that religious communities enjoy autonomy in governing their internal affairs, free from state interference, particularly in matters of membership and discipline.
In light of these principles, the arguments directed against Jehovah’s Witnesses raise significant concerns. When examined closely, the underlying logic—namely, that a religious community’s decision to limit association with former members constitutes unlawful conduct—can be extended to a broader context that exposes its conceptual weaknesses.
If such reasoning were accepted, it would imply that the state may compel individuals or groups to maintain social relationships against their will, on the basis that refusal to associate infringes upon another person’s interests. This would be incompatible with the well-established principle that freedom of association includes the negative right not to associate.
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently protected this dimension of autonomy. In Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, the Court held that sanctions against a religious organization based on its internal practices—absent clear evidence of harm rising to the level of a legal violation—constitute a disproportionate interference with religious freedom.
Furthermore, the characterization of internal disciplinary measures as “coercion” must meet a high evidentiary threshold. Coercion, in legal terms, implies pressure that effectively deprives an individual of their freedom of choice. This threshold is not readily satisfied where:
The individual remains free to engage in social relations outside the religious community
There is no evidence of coordinated efforts to exclude the individual from broader society
The consequences are confined to the internal sphere of the religious group
Accordingly, the decision of a religious community to regulate its internal relationships, including the limitation of association with individuals who no longer adhere to its norms, should be understood as an exercise of collective religious autonomy and freedom of association, rather than as unlawful coercion.
In sum, any state action that penalizes such internal practices—absent demonstrable and substantial harm—risks exceeding the limits imposed by Article 9 and undermining the pluralism that the Convention seeks to protect.