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.”