The Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina has rejected the bulk of Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy’s claims for an injunction or temporary restraining order against the Anglican Church in North America.

On 6 Nov 2025 the Hon. Bruce Hendricks granted in part and denied in part the 8 Oct 2025 request for a temporary restraining order by the JAFC in its fight with the ACNA.

Attorneys for Derek Jones, the bishop of the JAFC put forward five causes of action against the ACNA. 

1. It asked the court to restrain the defendant from using the plaintiff’s service mark “Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaince”, the plaintiff’s name “Special Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy”, the plaintiff’s trademark “Anglican Chaplains”, the plaintiff’s logo, and Jones’ title “Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy.”
2. It asked the court to compel the ACNA to no longer state that it had removed Jones from office.
3. It asked the court to compel the ACNA from stating the JAFC lacked the capacity to endorse chaplains for the armed forces from the ACNA.
4. It asked the court to halt slandering Jones.
5. And to halt the transfer or departure of any chaplains or religious institutions from the JAFC to the ACNA.

Judge Hendricks stated at the 17 Oct 2025 hearing the court would not entangle itself in the internal ecclesial disputes over the ACNA’s structure, but had the authority to address limited issues raised by the plaintif. The judge further stated at the hearing that attorneys for the ACNA said their client would refrain from using the servicemarks and trademarks of the JAFC. The court decided that in light of the defendant’s statements and applicable case law, it would grant a preliminary injunction against the ACNA on those issues.

However, the court rejected the JAFC’s request to block the ACNA from using the title “Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy” and the four other causes of action, finding the “Plaintiff has failed to make a clear showing of a likelihood of success onth merits.”

Judge Hendricks wrote “very little about this case is clear”, and that “certain of the Plaintiff’s requests wade into ecclesiastical matters that are not appropriate for it to resolve.”

“Furthermore” the judge wrote, “the Court does not find it appropriate to resolve [the] factual disputes at this time and based on the current record. Lastly, as to Plaintiff’s request that the Court restraing Defendant from slander Plaintiff of Bishop Jones, the Court simply notes that law already exists to prevent slander.”

While the case will continue in order to ascertain the facts, the practical effect will be to end Jones’ attempts to leverage a trademark dispute into a weapon in his fight with the ACNA. The court will not step in and restore Jones to ecclesial office nor compel the ACNA to use Jones as an ecclesial endorser for the armed forces.

The case continues.