On August 7, 2026, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU of Utah submitted separate amicus curiae filings to the U.S. District Court for Utah, asking the bench to throw out a copyright and trademark action filed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints against podcaster John P. Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation.
The Legal Clash Over Language and Criticism
Imagine a scenario where McDonald’s could use trademark law to control how anyone uses the term “fast food,” or if the Canadian government could stop the public from using the word “Canada” in the title of a book about the country and its people. That kind of linguistic chokehold is exactly what civil liberties groups are fighting against in court this August 2026. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alongside Intellectual Reserve, Inc., launched legal action targeting the Mormon Stories podcast, which examines Mormonism and Mormon culture. According to filings from the ACLU of Utah, plaintiffs argue that calling a podcast “Mormon Stories” is an unacceptable trademark violation.
The EFF, representing more than 30,000 members with over three decades of digital civil liberties work, joined the legal battle alongside attorneys at Ballard Spahr to push back against what it characterizes as trademark bullying by the church. Over the past decade, the EFF has opposed similar legal actions by the institution, including a 2014 amicus brief when the church sued an online dating service called Mormon Match, a 2016 legal threat against the Mormon Mental Health Association, and a 2025 pressure campaign against Burke Sorenson regarding the Mormon News Roundup podcast.
Two Legal Doctrines Converge on Free Speech
While both civil liberties organizations landed on the same conclusion—that no institution should weaponize intellectual property to control who can use the word “Mormon”—they approached the case from distinct doctrinal directions, according to filings in the U.S. District Court for Utah.
The ACLU of Utah based its arguments on trademark fair use, opening its brief by comparing the church’s claims to historically protected expressive works:
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.
The ACLU of Utah’s brief argues that the word never functioned as a brand in the first place. Instead, it is a term describing an entire ethnoreligious culture, tradition, and people, many of whom are not members of the LDS Church. To support this, the brief points to scholarly records such as The Journal of Mormon History, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the 1844 succession crisis, and fundamentalist groups like the FLDS and the Apostolic United Brethren. It cites podcast episodes covering figures like Elissa Wall and Warren Jeffs to demonstrate that “Mormon” serves simply as the most accurate descriptor for the topics discussed. Borrowing from the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in Radiance Foundation v. NAACP, the brief notes that “it is not immediately apparent how someone would confuse [a podcast] which is strongly critical of an organization with the organization itself.”
The Rogers Test and the Real Cost of Litigation
Meanwhile, the EFF focused its amicus brief on the First Amendment protections established by the Rogers v. Grimaldi legal test. The EFF urged the district court to adopt the Rogers test—which many other courts use for cases involving trademarks in expressive works rather than mere brand names—arguing it provides a vital safeguard that allows courts to throw out meritless claims early.
The EFF emphasized that the high cost of defending against intellectual property claims is often the primary mechanism of silencing critics. Referencing the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s 2025 economic study, the EFF document points out that a typical trademark case through trial and appeal costs between $250,000 and $1,100,000 per party, while merely getting to trial requires expenditures anywhere from $100,000 to $375,000. Individuals and small-scale speakers relying on trademarks to critique powerful entities routinely face legal threats they cannot independently afford to litigate.
Both the EFF and the ACLU of Utah are asking the U.S. District Court for Utah to grant the Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss and to throw out the lawsuit with prejudice.
