Editing Hutterites (section)

=== In the courts ===
As part of their [[Anabaptist]] teachings of nonresistance, Hutterites historically have avoided getting involved in litigation within the secular justice system. One of the early founders of the Hutterites, [[Peter Riedemann]], wrote about the Hutterites' stand on going to court in ''Peter Riedemann's Hutterite Confession of Faith'': "Christ shows that Christians may not go to court when he says, 'If anyone will sue you and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.' In effect Jesus is saying, 'It is better to let people take everything than to quarrel with them and find yourself in a strange court.' Christ wants us to show that we seek what is heavenly and belongs to us, and not what is temporal or alien to us. Thus, it is evident that a Christian can neither go to court nor be a judge."

Consistent with their beliefs, records do not indicate any litigation initiated by the Hutterites up to the twentieth century. However, in their more recent history in North America some Hutterite conflicts have emerged in court litigations. Several cases involved the Hutterite Colony defending their religious lifestyle against the government.<ref name="Univ of British Columbia Pr">{{cite book|last=Esau|first=Alvin J.|title=Courts And the Colonies The Litigation of Hutterite Church Disputes.|date=2006|publisher=Univ of British Columbia Pr|location=Vancouver|isbn=978-0774811170}}</ref> This includes the recent conflict over photographs on driver's licenses in ''[[Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony]]''. Another recent case in the United States, ''Big Sky Colony Inc. v. Montana Department of Labor and Industry'', forced the Hutterites to participate in the workers' compensation system despite the Hutterites' religious objections.<ref>{{cite news|title=Montana Hutterite colony asks Supreme Court to hear religious liberty case|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865577854/Montana-Hutterite-colony-asks-Supreme-Court-to-hear-religious-liberty-case.html?pg=all|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517153703/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865577854/Montana-Hutterite-colony-asks-Supreme-Court-to-hear-religious-liberty-case.html?pg=all|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 17, 2013|newspaper=Deseret News|date=April 10, 2013}}</ref>

The willingness of the colonies to take matters to secular courts has also resulted in internal religious disputes being brought before the court. Two of these cases have come to appeal before the [[Supreme Court of Canada]]: ''Hofer v. Hofer'' (1970) and ''Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren v. Hofer'' (1992). ''Hofer v. Hofer'' involved several expelled members of the Interlake Colony in [[Manitoba]] who sought a share of the communal property. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that according to the religious tenets of the Hutterites, the Hutterites have no individual property and therefore the former members cannot be entitled to a share of the Hutterite colony's goods. In the case of ''Lakeside Colony of Hutterian Brethren v. Hofer'', Daniel Hofer Sr. of Lakeside Colony challenged the right of the Hutterian Brethren Church to expel him and other members. The igniting issue focused on who owned the rights to a patented hog feeder. The Board of Managers of the Colony had ruled that Hofer did not own the patent of the hog feeder in question and should stop producing the item. Hofer refused to submit to what he considered was an injustice and also refused to obey the colony's order of expulsion. In response Jacob Kleinsasser of Crystal Spring Colony, elder of the Schmiedleut group of Hutterites, tried to use the state to enforce the expulsion order. Daniel Hofer Sr. initially lost the case. Hofer also lost his first appeal but finally won on an appeal to the [[Supreme Court of Canada]], who overturned the expulsion.<ref name="Univ of British Columbia Pr"/><ref>{{cite book|last=Buckingham|first=Janet Epp|title=Fighting over God : a legal and political history of religious freedom in Canada|date=2014|publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press |isbn=978-0-7735-4327-0}}</ref> The outcome of these two cases has strongly influenced the outcome of similar cases in Canada. When some members of [[The Nine (authors)|The Nine]] sued their former colony in Manitoba in 2008 over lost wages and injuries the case was never even heard in court.<ref>{{cite news|last=Hitchen|first=Ian|title='The Nine' share their struggles|publisher=Brandon Sun|date=September 7, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Manitoba Hutterite colony sued over unpaid labour|agency=The Canadian Press|date=June 5, 2008}}</ref>

In the United States judges have repeatedly dismissed cases that were brought against the colony by colony members or former members. Such cases include ''Wollma, et al. v. Poinsett Hutterian Brethren, Inc.'' (1994) in [[South Dakota]], and ''Eli Wollman Sr. et al. v. Ayers Ranch Colony'' (2001) in [[Montana]]. More recently in [[North Dakota]], a case was brought by some of The Nine against Forest River Colony and was again dismissed by a judge in March 2010, ruling that the courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.<ref name="Court Document">{{cite news|title=Motion to Dismiss Maendel et al. v. Forest River Colony of Hutterian Bretheran|publisher=State of North Dakota County of Grand Forks}}</ref><ref name="Court Document2">{{cite news|title=Judgement of Dismissal Maendel et al. v. Forest River Colony of Hutterian Bretheran|publisher=State of North Dakota County of Grand Forks}}</ref>