Not at all. The state has a law governing property that says congregants, who occupy, use, and are seated on the property may keep it if they elect to part company with their demonination.
The argument of the Episcopal Church is that this is a religious dispute and canon law, not state law should apply.
The state, if they yield to canon law on this issue are taking sides in this religious dispute.
The court has already ruled in favor of the faithful Christians with regard to ownership under state law. The current round deals with a challenge by the left to the constitutionality of the state law. I expect the parishes to prevail on this issue.
That's not the way the law reads. The law is with respect to denominational splits, not denomination-congregation splits. The court previously ruled that there was a split in the denomination and under the 1867 law, the congregation, now aligned with CANA, rather than ECUSA, keeps the property. The whole point of the law is to determine what happens to property under such circumstances. The Diocese argument is rather awkward. To say the law intrudes upon the church, or denomination in this case, the question must be asked, which denomination? CANA or ECUSA. The Diocese's claim rests upon the notion that they are the sole denomination, something the court has determined is not the case. To say that canon law should decide the matter begs the question, which set of canon law? By allowing the congregation to choose under these circumstances, the 1867 law is minimizing state intrusion into the affairs of the church.