Kawasaki Nun posted:

My understanding is that the lawsuit should be directed at the State requiring the usage of programs that demand issues be resolved through religious arbitration.

Arbitration is a preferred means of conflict resolution because it alleviates strain on the court system. There is a hesitancy to overturn agreements to resolve issues via arbitration because, at least in theory, both parties agreed to utilize arbitration without being under duress. If you could just re-neg on your agreement to utilize arbitration then it would serve no purpose as a means of conflict resolution.

I have some reservations about the narrative provided in the story posted in the OP. Sweeping denials of liability like the one presented in the story are not enforceable, and it certainly would not be an open and shut decision as to whether or not the family had standing to sue Teen Challenge.