In Paul v. Watchtower (819 F.2d 875, 9th Cir. 1987) the court held that shunning is 'a part of the faith' and 'constitutionally protected', while recognising that 'the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial' and describing them as 'a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference'; the Supreme Court declined review; The Watchtower of 15 April 1988 presented the case as confirming that a shunned person 'cannot recover damages'.

“Although we recognize that the harms suffered by Janice Paul are real and not insubstantial, permitting her to recover for intangible or emotional injuries would unconstitutionally restrict the Jehovah’s Witnesses free exercise of religion. ... The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that society tolerate the type of harms suffered by Paul as a price well worth paying to safeguard the right of religious difference that all citizens enjoy.”

“The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum”