
Written by William C. Duncan
July 9, 2020
Majority opinion
Justice Samuel Alito framed the key question the court had to decide:
These cases require us to decide whether the First Amendment permits courts to intervene in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools who are entrusted with the responsibility of instructing their students in the faith.
The majority explained that religious institutions generally have to follow secular laws, but the Constitution “protect[s] their autonomy with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution’s central mission. And a component of this autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles.” The opinion notes that the ministerial exception was adopted because “a church’s independence on matters ‘of faith and doctrine’ requires the authority to select, supervise, and if necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities.” Absent this power, “a wayward minister’s preaching, teaching, and counseling could contradict the church’s tenets and lead the congregation away from the faith.”
The opinion also noted “the close connection that religious institutions draw between their central purpose and educating the young in the faith” by reviewing educational practices of a wide variety of religions and denominations. In this case, the teachers “performed vital religious duties. … [N]ot only were they obligated to provide instruction about the Catholic faith, but they were also expected to guide their students, by word and deed, toward the goal of living their lives in accordance with the faith.”
This was true even though they did not have the title “minister” (which is not used in many religions) and “had less formal religious training” than the teacher in the 2012 case, and it was not relevant whether the teacher was a member of the same faith as that of the school. Justice Alito concluded: “When a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school’s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.”
Dissenting opinion
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented (in an opinion joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). She wrote the ministerial exemption should not apply because the “teachers taught primarily secular subjects, lacked substantial religious titles and training, and were not even required to be Catholic.” This dissent would have confined the exception to leaders of churches.
What was at stake
This decision from the court is extremely significant, drawing a clear line that government cannot cross: Religious hiring decisions of faith-based organizations cannot be questioned. This is particularly important given the recent decision that interpreted federal civil rights law as requiring employers to make no distinction in hiring based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The previous ruling ensures that LGBT individuals cannot be fired for reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job. Under today’s ruling, religious groups will be able to decide whom they will employ to convey their religious message. Without this right, religious organizations would have faced the devastating possibility that the state could require them to hire or retain an employee whose teachings and actions send a message to others at odds with that of their faith.
The bottom line
The risk if the dissenting position had prevailed was that every employment dispute involving religious groups would become an occasion for the courts to decide matters that are essentially religious: who is an official representative; who can best represent the faith. The court prevented this by carefully applying critical and well-settled First Amendment rights to the specific context of religious schools – a welcome advance for religious freedom.
Read More
Will AI kill us in 10 years? | Chris Koopman & Ford Copple
Is AI really on track to destroy humanity, or are we confusing small risks with science fiction? On this episode of Defending Ideas, Nic Dunn sits down with Chris Koopman, CEO of Abundance Institute, and Ford Copple, tech policy analyst at Sutherland Institute, to discuss the growing debate over AI safety, regulation, data centers, and technological innovation.
Massachusetts case raises concerns about government cutting parents out of children’s decisions
When parents pose a threat to children’s safety, the state should act. But ideological disagreements are not a reason to cut parents out of a child’s life.
How Utah Fits All is helping students with special needs and other learning challenges
Education choice programs can change the course of a child’s life, expanding their knowledge and increasing their confidence, especially after a season of struggle with profound challenges. Utah should expand its education choice programs and offerings so more families have these experiences and more children can thrive.

