The judgement of the New Mexico case (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-mexico/nmdce/1:2017cv00763/367869/35/) basically illustrates the point I am making:
You have these Judges who look at the Paul vs WT case as a presedant without ever noticing that the enforcement of the shunning makes a big difference in statements as follow:
To allow the imposition of tort damages on a religious organization for shunning a former member would essentially criminalize and force the church to forego the practice, thereby, imposing a direct burden on religion.
In these cases, too, courts have concluded that even where the religious organization engages in conduct that, in other circumstances could be actionable under tort law, the First Amendment does not permit judicial interference in what are, essentially, ecclesiastical disputes concerning membership in religious organizations.
In short, you want to make a difference, you have to question the angle at which the decision was made in the Paul vs WT. I believe that the angle is the enforcement policy.
1) Doing away with mandatory shunning would not prevent parishioners to engage in the practice, thus, would not be a direct burden on religion.
2) Courts need to understand that mandatory shunning is not an ecclesiastical disputes concerning membership in religious organizations. It is about abusively punishing ex-members by controlling their association, thereby, denying the very humans right they so strongly claim: The right of freedom of association.