SALT LAKE CITY — The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah filed separate amicus curiae briefs on August 7, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for Utah. Both urged the court to dismiss the trademark and copyright lawsuit brought by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints against the Open Stories Foundation and podcaster John P. Dehlin.

The two organizations arrive at their conclusions from different doctrinal directions — EFF from the First Amendment test set out in Rogers v. Grimaldi, and the ACLU of Utah from trademark fair use. Both land in the same place: no institution, however rich or powerful, should be allowed to weaponize trademark law to determine who is permitted to use the word “Mormon.”

Both briefs support Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. Both ask the court to dismiss with prejudice.

“Trademark law does not override the public right to mention, criticize, or discuss”

The ACLU of Utah’s brief opens by placing the Church’s claim alongside the speech that trademark law has long protected:

“To name a song mocking the Barbie doll, call it “Barbie Girl.” To name a movie about fictional dancers who imitate Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, call it “Ginger and Fred.” To comment on a company, start a website and call it “company”.com. But to name a podcast about Mormon stories? Plaintiffs argue calling it “Mormon Stories” is unacceptable and prohibited by trademark law.”

“Congress, courts, and the United States Constitution have all recognized that this kind of chokehold on language is an inappropriate weaponization of intellectual property law beyond its intended purpose,” the brief continues. “Trademark law does not override the public right to mention, criticize, or discuss.”

The brief’s central legal point is that the word never functioned as a brand in the first place.

“The word ‘Mormon’ is not a source identifier,” it argues. “It is a term that describes an entire ethnoreligious culture, tradition, and people, many of whom are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

To make that case, the ACLU of Utah walks through the scholarly record:

• The Journal of Mormon History, which “is interpreted to encompass all traditions that trace their origins to Joseph Smith Jr.”;
• Encyclopaedia Britannica, which distinguishes the LDS Church from “other Mormon churches”;
• The 1844 succession crisis and the denominations it produced;
• The FLDS and Apostolic United Brethren, whose leaders “affirmed that they call themselves ‘Fundamentalist Mormons’”; and
• The U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1946 described FLDS petitioners as “members of a Mormon sect, known as Fundamentalists,” comparing them to “other Mormons.”

Turning to the podcast itself, the brief concludes that the title does what titles do — describe the work. It cites Mormon Stories Podcast episodes on Elissa Wall and Warren Jeffs and on a Mormon bishop’s resignation as examples of content wherein “Mormon” is simply the most accurate word for the respective topics. And it borrows the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in Radiance Foundation v. NAACP:

“it is not immediately apparent how someone would confuse [a podcast] which is strongly critical of an organization with the organization itself.”

EFF: the cost of the lawsuit is the point

The EFF, an organization which has worked for more than 30 years on digital civil liberties and counts more than 30,000 members, argues that the Rogers test exists precisely so that speakers without resources are not litigated into silence.

“Individuals who use trademarks to critique their owners are regularly subject to legal threats they cannot afford to litigate.”

The brief puts numbers to this claim. Citing the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s 2025 economic survey, it notes that the median cost of litigating a trademark claim through trial and appeal runs between $250,000 and $1,100,000 per party — and between $100,000 and $375,000 to get merely through discovery and motion practice. Quoting the leading trademark treatise:

“Faced with hugely expensive and lengthy litigation over vague standards, the recipient of a cease-and-desist letter will most often capitulate.”

EFF also points to a survey of trademark and copyright practitioners in which:

“…[attorneys] admitted to asserting trademark claims they believed were weak through demand letters — because it works,” and “to being more likely to take enforcement action against small-scale actors who would be unlikely to have the resources to resist even a weak claim.”

That is why, EFF argues, the timing of dismissal matters as much as the outcome:

“Because even allowing this case to proceed to discovery would burden Defendants’ expression and chill others from speaking about a powerful cultural institution, amicus urges the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice.”

A generic word for a faith tradition

EFF’s final section addresses the word directly.

“Trademarks claims based on generic terms are especially offensive to First Amendment principles because they allow a single entity to control use of a common term for its common meaning,” … and the stakes rise “when a generic term refers to something as culturally significant as a religious tradition.”

“Here, the term at issue, “Mormon,” is popularly understood to refer to a way of life that is common to many and owned by none. … There is no other term that so accurately and precisely describes those who follow what they see as the teachings of the Book of Mormon (whether through the LDS Church or otherwise), or who are members of the broader community. Accordingly, locking up the term creates an improper barrier to criticism and commentary about the LDS Church, its doctrines, and even unaffiliated groups.”

EFF frames the present suit as part of a pattern: “Unfortunately, Plaintiffs have a history of this kind of trademark abuse.” The brief cites the Church’s 2016 threat against the Mormon Mental Health Association — a professional group of clinicians, educators, and advocates who work with Church members — and a 2014 trademark claim against a dating site, in both of which EFF was involved.

Quoting a decision from this same district, the brief adds:

“The Lanham Act regulates only economic, not ideological or political, competition.”

A word the Church itself has discouraged

Both briefs note a tension at the heart of the case. Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica’s entry on the Church, the ACLU of Utah observes that:

“The term Mormon, often used to refer to members of this church, comes from the Book of Mormon, which was published by Smith in 1830; use of the term is discouraged by the church.”

The brief then turns that history into an argument for the defense: the choice to keep using the word “is itself expressive,” because:

“[Defendants] have maintained their use of the term ‘Mormon’ to describe their content, even when the term was unpopular and actively discouraged by the LDS Church — as well as through fluctuations in the Church’s popularity generally.”

What the briefs ask for

The ACLU of Utah closes:

“Defendants do not use the term ‘Mormon’ as a source identifier. They use it to describe their podcast, which produces and broadcasts stories about Mormon culture and history, as well as the lived experiences of Mormons and former Mormons. The term Mormon is not limited to the LDS Church but instead reflects a much more expansive set of social, cultural, and religious groups.”

It urges the court to grant the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.

EFF asks the same, and adds a warning about what a contrary ruling would mean for everyone who is not a party to this case:

“Trademark law has never given a mark owner veto power over all uses of its mark, particularly where use of the mark is necessary to discuss a topic of significant public interest.”

To help stop the LDS Church from silencing and bankrupting Mormon Stories Podcast and other content creators in the Mormon space, please consider donating here.

Finally, if you are an Intellectual Property attorney who would like to join a Mormon Stories Podcast episode to discuss this case, please email John at: mormonstories@gmail.com.

(Note: The OSF’s response to the LDS Church’s lawsuit can be found here. The OSF’s motion to dismiss can be found here.)