Update, August 12, 2026: The court has continued the combined hearing to Wednesday, October 21, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. (Doc. 60). This article has been updated accordingly.[3]
On Wednesday, October 21, a federal judge in San Diego will hear motions that will shape an unusual federal case. The Mission Church of Carlsbad (“church”), the Christian & Jewish Alliance (“alliance”), and Ruth Mastron, an individual attendee of an alliance event, are suing nine San Diego–area activists — Daniel Brunner, eight other named individuals, and forty unidentified protesters who “will be specifically named as Defendants when their true identities are ascertained”[2] — over 2025 protests of the church’s Israel events in which they participated.[2, 3, 9]
The suit was filed in the Southern District of California on November 4, 2025. It claims the defendants (1) trespassed under California law and (2) violated the FACE Act — a federal statute best known for protecting access to reproductive-health clinics, but which also covers places of religious worship.[2, 11] The plaintiffs ask for damages, including punitive damages, and a permanent injunction that would bar the defendants from demonstrating within 100 feet of church or alliance events.[1, 2] The plaintiffs are represented by Jones Day, one of the largest law firms in the world, and First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based religious-liberty litigation organization.[2, 10]
What the church alleges
The complaint centers on three incidents. On March 19, 2025, the church hosted an event headlined by Dr. Einat Wilf, a former member of the Israeli Knesset. There, it is alleged, protesters (1) chanted outside through bullhorns — “Mission Church, you can’t hide! We charge you with genocide!”; (2) registered to attend under false names and disrupted the program from inside the sanctuary at staggered intervals; and (3) later blocked the sidewalk between the front door and the parking lot.[2] On Easter Sunday, April 20, 2025, it is alleged, protesters returned, disrupting one of the church’s most heavily attended services of the year. And at an alliance interfaith function at a San Diego amphitheater on September 7, 2025, the complaint alleges protesters blocked entrances, surrounded arriving cars — one person even jumping onto the hood of Mastron’s car — and blared sirens throughout the three-hour event.[2]
The complaint also contends the church’s pastor, David Menard, wrote to Brunner after the Easter protest: “If you ever want to have a genuine conversation, the offer stands. Until then, please leave us alone. What you are doing is not free speech - it is just harassment.”[2]
What the defense argues
The defendants dispute these allegations, on which no court has ruled.[4] On April 7, 2026, defense counsel responded with two motions: a motion to dismiss, and a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law — a statute meant to terminate lawsuits that target protected speech.[12] The anti-SLAPP motion targets the trespass claim, the suit’s only state-law claim.[4, 5]
The defense’s central argument: because the March 19 event was headlined by a former politician and self-described atheist, on the topic of “Exploring Israel’s Statehood and the Palestinian Refugee Issue,” it was “a political forum, not a worship service.” An opening prayer, the motion argues, does not transform a gathering into a worship service “any more than an invocation before a city council meeting transforms subsequent policy debate into religious exercise.”[4] As for the sidewalk protests, the defense argues that sidewalks are public, and that their use for expressive activity “is among the most firmly established rights under the First Amendment.”[4]
The defense also argues that the church has its own record of political activity, citing The San Diego Union-Tribune’s report that in October 2024 the church — a 501(c)(3) registered as Ezra Ministries — donated $950 each to two school-board candidates, and that Menard encouraged congregants from the pulpit to “support them, both with your votes and financially.” After the newspaper’s inquiry, the church requested the money back, with Menard stating: “we realized we had stepped out of the IRS guidelines for a 501(c)(3).”[4, 6] If the court grants the motion, the trespass claim will be stricken and the plaintiffs will owe the defendants’ attorneys’ fees on it.[4]
What the church told the court it believes
Whatever the court decides, the case has already done one permanent thing. To claim the FACE Act’s protection, the plaintiffs had to explain why their events were religious exercise — and in doing so, the church wrote its theology into the federal record. “The Church adheres to dispensationalist Christian beliefs,” the amended complaint states, “a centuries-old body of theology that teaches, among other things, that God chose Israel to be his representation to the world and has uniquely blessed it.” This interpretation of the Bible understands Genesis 12:3 — God “will bless those who bless [Israel], and … will curse him who curses [Israel]” — as applying to the modern state.[1] Then comes the filing’s plainest sentence:
The filing is no lawyer’s artifact. Two weeks after October 7, 2023, Pastor Menard preached a sermon titled “Israel, Hamas and Bible Prophecy” — still posted today on the church’s own website and YouTube channel.[7, 8] In it, alongside real grief for the October 7 victims, he taught the same doctrine the church would later plead:
Preached from the pulpit in 2023. Pleaded to a federal court in 2026. The teaching has a name — Christian Zionism — and for decades it worked mostly quietly, in what gets preached and what doesn’t. Not anymore. It is on the record now, in the church’s own words.
What happens October 21
On October 21, 2026, Judge Andrew G. Schopler will hear the three motions together — the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and the defendants’ motions to dismiss and to strike. The hearing has been twice reset: from June 1 to August 19, and, on August 12, to October 21.[3] The potential outcomes range widely: the trespass claim could be stricken, the federal claims narrowed or dismissed, or the case could proceed toward discovery and trial. There are still no rulings, and every allegation described above, on both sides, remains unproven.
Where we stand
Everything above is reporting, drawn from the public court file. This — plainly labeled — is advocacy: ChurchDivest is not neutral about this case. The defendants are fellow organizers in our own San Diego community, and we stand with them.
On October 21 we will be outside the courthouse with their supporters. Their community — not ChurchDivest — runs a legal-defense fund for the defense. Here’s how to stand with them →