• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Supreme Court Decision in Hosanna-Tabor a Major Win for Religious Freedom

    Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that resoundingly affirms the freedom of religious groups to choose their own ministers.

    Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC involved a lawsuit brought by an employee against a church-operated school. The employee alleged that her employment was terminated in violation of a federal anti-discrimination law.

    The question in this case was “whether the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar such an action when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group’s ministers.”

    In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court answered in the affirmative, stating that “[b]oth Religion Clauses bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to fire one of its ministers.”

    For several reasons, the Court’s ruling is a landmark victory for religious freedom.

    First, the ruling unambiguously affirms the vital constitutional doctrine known as the “ministerial exception.”

    As the Court explained, since certain federal anti-discrimination laws were enacted, the U.S. Court of Appeals “have uniformly recognized the existence of a ‘ministerial exception,’ grounded in the First Amendment, that precludes application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers.”

    In Hosanna-Tabor, the Court agreed “that there is such a ministerial exception.” Furthermore, the Court held that the rule is grounded in the Religion Clauses themselves, which reflect the “special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations” that is given by the First Amendment. In the Court’s words:

    Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.

    Second, the Court expressly agreed with every federal court of appeals to have considered the question that the ministerial exception “is not limited to the head of a religious congregation.”

    The teacher who sued the church-operated school in this case taught religion as well as other school subjects. Some argued that this teacher should not count as a “minister” because, among other reasons, she performed many secular as well as religious duties.

    The Supreme Court rejected this unduly narrow view and noted that “heads of congregations themselves often have a mix of duties, including secular ones such as helping to manage the congregation’s finances, supervising purely secular personnel, and overseeing the upkeep of facilities.” Instead of adopting an extreme view that would have severely restricted religious freedom, the Court considered a variety of factors and concluded that the employee in this case was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception.

    Third, the Court clarified that the protections of the ministerial exception are not limited to cases where a religious group fires a minister only for a religious reason.

    Such a suggestion, the Court explained, “misses the point of the ministerial exception.… The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful—a matter ‘strictly ecclesiastical’—is the church’s alone.”

    The Court’s decision today represents another important victory by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm that, along with Professor Douglas Laycock, represented the church-operated school in this case.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    8 Responses to Supreme Court Decision in Hosanna-Tabor a Major Win for Religious Freedom

    1. West Texan says:

      I didn't see any dissenting opinions. Kagan went with Alito's different rationale concurrence.

    2. Bobbie says:

      Amen to the Supreme Court! it's too bad the government is attacking all institutes that are a threat to the distinct acts of government's non compliance to all Americans that pay the costs of government.

    3. Brad says:

      The reason for unanimous, is that to rule differently would create an open door of reciprocity; if government could govern a church or religious body, then the exact opposite could be true, a church could rule and impose its ecclesiastical belief on government. Such as a city council of religious majority or a local ordinance voted into law by a majority of church people, a "swear free zone".

    4. LJ Anderson says:

      This ruling is the best news related to religious freedom from government interference that I have seen for a long, long time…..and yet, only one comment, other than mine, thus far. I'm amazed! We should all be celebrating this great news.

      • Rowena Soules says:

        I am very well pleased with this decision, which could have been very different. Much prayer must have preceeded it. RLS

    5. A. Terranova says:

      I'm wondering what this decision will do to the increasing evidence that Shariah Law is being upheld in courts throughout the country. Is this why all nine judges were in agreement?

    6. Pingback: Adding Insult to Injury: Obama Admin Refuses to Protect Religious Liberty | PERSUASION IN INK

    7. asdsfdgfd says:

      horray for sharia law, who needs civil laws when religion trumps all

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.