Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation.
The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed.
There was just one big problem standing in the way of the government's plan: the U.S. Constitution. For a long time American courts have recognized the existence of a "ministerial exemption" which keeps government’s hands off the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers or clergy.
Here, in this case, the Department of Justice had the nerve to not only challenge the exemption’s application but also its very existence.
But, Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out:
I think one of the fascinating things about Hosanna-Tabor is the tangle of evident misunderstandings or animosities between the key players in the fact set, which became the foundation for a major First Amendment ruling:
ReplyDelete* Perich is diagnosed with narcolepsy in December;
* in January the doctor tells her she can return to the classroom in February;
* she passes that info on to her principal;
* three days later, the principal tells the congregation he doesn’t think she’ll be able to return to teaching that year or the next;
* they ask for her resignation;
* a week later, the doctor gives her unconditional permission to return to teaching.
* they refuse to let her return.
(more info at http://crybelovedcountry.com/2011/11/scotus-top-ten-list-part-5-freedom-of-religion/)
Why did the principal think he was more of an authority than the doctor on Perich’s ability to work? Did the school and church want to get rid of her for some other reason and see this as just a convenient opportunity? I’d love to know more about the interpersonal dynamic there. But those were the facts entered at trial, and thus all the facts available to the Circuit Court and to SCOTUS. So that’s the platform they used to talk about the First Amendment.
But I’m absolutely stunned that it was a 9-0 ruling. Thomas, Alito and Kagan concurred (Thomas in one opinion and Alito and Kagan in another), but even so, I would never have expected Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan to join in. The Court never loses its capacity to surprise.
Here’s a much more detailed recap than Fox gives: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/opinion-recap-a-solid-ministerial-exception/#more-136532
It’s written by Lyle Denniston, a legal journalist who has covered the High Court for over 50 years.
But I’m absolutely stunned that it was a 9-0 ruling.
ReplyDeleteMe too! Flabbergasted and I'll check out the links. Thanks.