Can a threat of damnation be forced labor? A Michigan church case will test it

Federal prosecutors in Detroit say leaders of the Kingdom of God Global Church made members work unpaid in church call centers, under threat of abuse and “eternal damnation” (indictment). The church's leader, David E. Taylor, argued that the case turns his religious teaching into a crime, and his two co-defendants joined him. On Nov. 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Susan K. DeClercq refused to dismiss the charges (opinion). All three defendants have pleaded not guilty, and nothing has been proven.

What prosecutors say

The indictment alleges that Taylor set “unobtainable” fundraising goals and that workers who broke rules faced punishments including “physical assault, additional work, sleep deprivation, food restrictions, loss of shelter, psychological abuse, and threats of spiritual damnation” (indictment).

The indictment also alleges that Taylor directed female workers to perform sex acts and to make sexually explicit pictures and videos for him. The defendants asked the judge to strike those allegations as irrelevant and prejudicial (motion). She refused, calling them “part and parcel of the forced labor conspiracy” (opinion). Bench Watch isn't describing those allegations further.

What the defense says

Taylor's lawyers say the workers were adults who joined voluntarily, kept their phones and could leave. In an Aug. 7 filing, they said nearly all of the ministers returned to the ministry after federal agents raided church properties in August 2025, WDIV reported. In asking the judge to dismiss the case, they described the workers as “competent adult members of a voluntary religious community with access to phones, identification documents, family, and the ability to leave,” according to the judge's opinion (opinion).

Bench Watch BreakdownForced laborShow or hide the explanation

What it means

Federal law makes it a crime to get someone's work through force, threats or “serious harm.” The harm doesn't have to be physical. It can be harm to someone's mind, money or name.

In this case

The indictment says workers were told they would face sickness, death and damnation if they left. Taylor's lawyers say the workers were adults who could leave. A jury will decide.

Why it matters

The judge ruled that alleged threats of damnation can count toward “serious harm” when they come with other alleged abuse. A jury still has to decide whether they did here.

18 U.S.C. 1589

The religious-freedom question

Taylor argued that his words and actions are protected religious exercise, and that because the prosecution treats him as a “false prophet,” a jury would have to find his beliefs false to convict him, the opinion says. Judge DeClercq disagreed. “Even if these actions were religiously motivated, they are all actions,” she wrote. She found that the alleged threats of damnation are “actionable conduct, rather than unprosecutable religious beliefs,” and that they may be weighed together with the other alleged abuse (opinion).

Bench Watch BreakdownReligious Freedom Restoration ActShow or hide the explanation

What it means

This federal law protects faith. The government can't make it much harder for you to practice your religion. The only exception is when it has a very strong reason and no gentler way to act.

In this case

Taylor said this case burdens his faith. The judge agreed that it does. But she ruled the government met the law's test, writing that “there are no adequate, less restrictive options.” She denied his request on Nov. 9, 2026.

42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1

Bench Watch BreakdownCourts can't judge a faithShow or hide the explanation

What it means

A court can't decide if a religion is true. In 1944, the Supreme Court said people can't be made to prove what they believe. In its words, they “may not be put to the proof” of their beliefs.

In this case

Taylor relies on that case. The judge agreed that jurors can't decide whether his beliefs are true, and she said they must be told so. But she ruled that the conduct the indictment describes can still go to trial.

United States v. Ballard (1944)

The question isn't new. In 1988, the Supreme Court limited an older law against involuntary servitude to physical or legal coercion, warning that a broader reading might cover “a religious leader who obtains personal services by means of religious indoctrination” (Kozminski). In 2000, Congress found, when it passed the forced-labor law, that laws against involuntary servitude are meant to reach people held in servitude “through nonviolent coercion” (22 U.S.C. 7101).

Taylor's lawyers relied on a 2012 ruling from another federal appeals court, which said courts “must distinguish between improper threats or coercion and permissible warnings of adverse but legitimate consequences,” and that “a church is entitled to stop associating with someone who abandons it” (Headley v. Church of Scientology). Judge DeClercq said she did not find that ruling “particularly persuasive” here, because the indictment gives no legitimate reason for the alleged coercion (opinion).

“Courts across the country agree that Defendants’ spiritual threats may rise to the level of psychological harm, and, therefore, may be considered by the jury,” she wrote, citing earlier federal cases (opinion).

What's next

Trial is set for April 20, 2027, The Christian Post reported, and the judge's opinion notes that the parties agreed to exclude the time through that date from the Speedy Trial Act deadline (opinion). Taylor remains in custody. On Nov. 10, the judge denied his latest request for release, The Christian Post reported. Brannon and Klein were released on conditions while the case is pending (Sixth Circuit).