In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.
“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity. “But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”
The decision gave only limited guidance about how courts should decide who counts as a minister, saying the court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula.” Two concurring opinions offered contrasting proposals.
Chief Justice Roberts does a survey of findings relating to the power of Church vs. State. I may be wrong but it does not seem that this opinion will help churches in arguments about keeping their property as opposed to it being claimed by a “hierarchal” church. There are any number of folks who have been interested in one of the TEC vs congregation struggles making it to SCOTUS. Based on the line of thinking from the Chief Justice, I am not sure that would produce a happy outcome for dissenters. I hope I am reading this wrongly.
No. 1 hits on something interesting. The Court indicates clearly that its unanimous sense of religious freedom issues under the Constitution dictate a high degree of deference to the internal workings of religious organizations. This makes it unlikely (as a general principle, although there can be factual variations that would defeat this) that any case upholding Episcopal control over property claimed by departees would get the Court’s attention, while a decision in which a court inserted itself into internal Episcopal governance to support a divestment of Episcopal control would appear to be more problematic on review. Moreover, the recent Virginia decision shows how adroit a good judge can be in constructing a decision that pretty much avoids any possibility that a federal constitutional issue will be created by a decision. I used to think that many of these cases would converge at the U.S. Supreme Court level. I now think that only one or two out-liers will make it, if any.
I think it’s worth reading this for its own sake, and no simply in light of the property issue to do with TEC.
This is a great outcome, and all the better because the Obama administration argued a position that would have been utterly pernicious in its effect and it has been explicitly and resoundingly rejected by the justices. This is a huge blow to groups like the Separation of Church and State and the like, and they know it. It helps ensure that the Americans will enjoy religious freedoms of a kind compatible with what they have had – no small thing as the bigger conflict between ‘gay rights’ and religious freedom will likely end up with legal outcomes.
“internal workings of religious organizations” — this is precisely what is being debated in Quincy, San Joachin, SC, VA, TX, GA and LA. So, the TX Supreme Court will have to decide in the coming months if the “internal workings” are as FW argues or as a ‘national church’ position has it. SCOTUS’ very positive rejection of the Obama arguments does not however say very much about cases pending. I would imagine the biggest effect will be on trying to use secular “human rights” arguments for how a church handles its understanding of the ministerial role. That is, if a church decides there are certain standards for its ministers, that will be up to them. In the case SCOTUS heard, the Lutheran Church -MS was allowed to terminate an employee who sued them, because they had religious principles that governed these matters. Ironically, TEC does not claim to have standards that insist churches not sue, and so lawsuits become the main venue in the end — claiming millions of dollars and empty properties to be sold on the open market.